Sex before Marriage?

[Debora123]

but according to the bible, you will not be married in heaven, so it cant “bind your souls together”.

As Catholics, we don’t take the bible word for word. We look to the CHURCH for answers. That’s what separates us from the protestants.

 

[RyanBlack]

Christ will take the church as his bride, and the church consists of many people. so isnt that polygamy, forgive me please, im not trying to blaspheme, thats a real question. then why is polygamy not allowed? if marriage is supposed to be analogous with christ’s marriage to the church, then why ban polygamy?

Though the Church has many members, she is one. So no, it is not “polygamy” for Christ to take the Church as his bride.

 

[someperson555]

As Catholics, we don’t take the bible word for word. We look to the CHURCH for answers. That’s what separates us from the protestants.

absolutely, but the church has the authority to change non- dogmas. hence my point. anyway, you guys make a lovey couple. all debates aside.

 

[Debora123]

absolutely, but the church has the authority to change non- dogmas. hence my point. anyway, you guys make a lovey couple. all debates aside.

Thank you.

 

[RyanBlack]

absolutely, but the church has the authority to change non- dogmas. hence my point. anyway, you guys make a lovey couple. all debates aside.

The Church has the authority to change matter of Church discipline. The Church cannot change divine law. I’m certainly no prude, and I’m not naive, but the teaching that sex outside of marriage is sinful is a matter of divine law, and therefore, the Church has no authority to set that teaching aside.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

the bible says a lot of things, but what you should remember, is that the bible was written 2000 years ago. the times radically different. back then the family was more necessary than nowadays. and no, its really not a big deal. as long as the two people consent, i fail to see the evil. and you know, its not like if the church eases the rules, everyone is going to suddenly have sex, its like the drugs debate. if drugs were suddenly legalized, its not like everyone would start doing them. for example, im a 21 year old male, so far, i have engaged in sexual activity, but i never went all the way. and you know what? i dont plan to. but that just my decision, i cant force that on others. also i dont smoke, yet i could legally if i wanted to, but i still dont because i hate cigarettes.
and thats the other thing where the church kind of contradicts itself. if its going to make masturbation a MORTAL SIN, then it shoud make smoking also a mortal sin! because smoking is much worse! not to mention mention smoking actually hurts the people around you! so i dont get the church’s logic there. i believe an individual should be able to do whatever he wants by himself in the privacy of his own home as long as it does not harm others physically or mentally, and it does not insult God. consensual sex does not harm anybody, it does not infringe upon the liberties of others, and it does not blaspheme against God. so seriously, why cany God just let people have sex. OR if youre going to ban sex, then ban smoking, drinking and gambling too by making them MORTAL SINS, just like sex.

You say you are 21? You think like someone who is about 13. What a jumbled mess.



Also hard to believe that you are a Catholic, you certainly do not understand much of Church teaching or God’s laws.

 

[Debora123]

You say you are 21? You think like someone who is about 13. What a jumbled mess.



Also hard to believe that you are a Catholic, you certainly do not understand much of Church teaching or God’s laws.

that wasnt very nice…

 

[someperson555]

You say you are 21? You think like someone who is about 13. What a jumbled mess.



Also hard to believe that you are a Catholic, you certainly do not understand much of Church teaching or God’s laws.

first of all, english was not my first language,
also im posting in a forum, not writing a dissertation for my Ph.d
and wow, i had no idea you were an expert on catholicism!
well, im sure when the pope needs council, youre the first one he consults

 

[Art321]

first of all, english was not my first language,
also im posting in a forum, not writing a dissertation for my Ph.d
and wow, i had no idea you were an expert on catholicism!
well, im sure when the pope needs council, youre the first one he consults

I recommend this site for you!

chastity.com/

 

[someperson555]

I recommend this site for you!

chastity.com/

am i the only one who finds websites like that one sad? you know, a wise man once said (Pascal I believe) that we humans are both angels and animals. we are spirit and flesh, material and immaterial. unfortunately, humans tend to confuse themselves with one or the other. we as humans have two driving forces, one to know God, and the other, to reproduce. its unhealthy in my opinion to ignore one side and just cater to the other. look i admire chaste people, really i do, it must take tremendous will power to abstain untill youre married, but chastity should be a choice, not coercion (again, just my humble opinion) i know that you, God and the church probably couldnt care less what my opinion is, but hey, free speech
also, FYI, i used to live a sexual life, but i gave it up because im trying to follow the rules of the church, but i dont have to like those rules. just because i folow them doesnt mean i agree with them.

 

[carn]

as long as the two people consent, i fail to see the evil.

i believe an individual should be able to do whatever he wants by himself in the privacy of his own home as long as it does not harm others physically or mentally, and it does not insult God. consensual sex does not harm anybody, it does not infringe upon the liberties of others,

As you are young and therefore probably remember high school, i hope you can better visiualize what i describe now and therefore better understand, why two people consenting is not enough to avoid problems. And this example should just demonstrate, how problems with two consenting people having sex can arise, it is by now means exhaustive and therefore sufficient to develop complete moral norms.

Starting around age of 15 interest in sexual activity arises, high school finishes around 18. Average school size might be around 100 pupils per year.
If it would be no problem for two consenting people to have sex, it should be no problem for all 100 to engage in sexual activity regularly, as there is supposedly nothing wrong about it and it can be fun.

So the 50 females of a hypothetical standard school have until age 17 more or less contionusly sex for 2 years.

Looking at pearl index,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table
,that means the following:

If they all use condoms for contraception and have typical failure rates, 50*(1-0.85^2) = 14 will give birth to a child before finishing high school. If they received excellent training in contraceptive application (which i think is what majority thinks would solve problem of teenage pregnancies), 50*(1-0.98^2)= 2 will give birth to a child before finishing high schools.

If they all use the pill for contraception and have typical failure rates, 50*(1-0.92^2) = 8 will give birth to a child before finishing high school. If they receive excellent training in contraceptive application (which would have to include excellent training regarding abuse of drug and alcohol, which society fails to achieve since dawn of time), the probability for 1 giving birth to a child before finishing high school is about 30%, so for every fourth school, there would be one pregnancy.

So assuming abortion is not a possibility and assuming the miracle of succesfully teaching teens to correctly use the pill and to avoid alcohol abuse does not happen and assuming giving birth to a child before finishing high school is a bad idea, the advice for teenagers must be:

Do seldom or preferably never have sex.

(And looking into the high school pregancy rates, which are about 13 per 1000 or in our numbers 0.3 per 50 females, it seems teenagers for whatever reason already live mostly along these lines (Or all take the pill with perfect use or a combination thereof). Otherwise the pregnancy rates would be about 10 times as high.)

And thats what we can conclude without ever looking into bible or church teaching, just by assuming that abortion is not preferable and becoming mother before finishing high school is not preferable either.

That the church teaches limitations beyond that is simply due to the bible having limitations beyond that. But we can already conclude that even with modern contraceptions, there would be ample reasons to limit sexual activity in respect to age, stability of partnership, family situation and so on. So that the church teaches limitations on sex is perfectly sensible.

If we now assume that contraception is also wrong, churchs teaching is nearly an unavoidable conclusion(*). Because with regular sex without contraception the probability of pregnancy is 85% per year and children are far better of with married parents, so one should marry if one wants to have sex, otherwise a third party - the child - will be hurt.
So either marry or abstain.

(*Ok, the loop holes of postponing marriage until pregancy happens or using NFP would still exist by looking in this narrow way at church teaching, but both options do not look that sensible and are certainly no sensible option for one night encounters.)

 

[Debora123]

am i the only one who finds websites like that one sad? you know, a wise man once said (Pascal I believe) that we humans are both angels and animals. we are spirit and flesh, material and immaterial. unfortunately, humans tend to confuse themselves with one or the other. we as humans have two driving forces, one to know God, and the other, to reproduce. its unhealthy in my opinion to ignore one side and just cater to the other. look i admire chaste people, really i do, it must take tremendous will power to abstain untill youre married, but chastity should be a choice, not coercion (again, just my humble opinion) i know that you, God and the church probably couldnt care less what my opinion is, but hey, free speech
also, FYI, i used to live a sexual life, but i gave it up because im trying to follow the rules of the church, but i dont have to like those rules. just because i folow them doesnt mean i agree with them.

You are correct, it is a choice. The Church is there to guide us and help us make the right choices - to live according to the will of God.

She doesn’t force us into anything. She simply reveals the truth to us so that we may choose to take whatever path we’d like. We still have free will.

Does that make sense?

 

[Art321]

am i the only one who finds websites like that one sad? you know, a wise man once said (Pascal I believe) that we humans are both angels and animals. we are spirit and flesh, material and immaterial. unfortunately, humans tend to confuse themselves with one or the other. we as humans have two driving forces, one to know God, and the other, to reproduce. its unhealthy in my opinion to ignore one side and just cater to the other. look i admire chaste people, really i do, it must take tremendous will power to abstain untill youre married, but chastity should be a choice, not coercion (again, just my humble opinion) i know that you, God and the church probably couldnt care less what my opinion is, but hey, free speech
also, FYI, i used to live a sexual life, but i gave it up because im trying to follow the rules of the church, but i dont have to like those rules. just because i folow them doesnt mean i agree with them.

Why is it sad?

Chastity is something that is REQUIRED for all those that are not married. I really recommend you to listen to all the videos of Jason Evert. He is someone that can explain the beauty of chastity far better than me on any given day.

The Church is always here to guide us towards God and His love. These “rules” as you see them are meant for us to find true happiness because if you follow the way of the world, you will never find the fullfilling love that you long for.

In the end, it is your choice. No one can ever force you to do anything, certainly not the Church.

 

[Nate13]

Why is it sad?

Chastity is something that is REQUIRED for all. (fixed ) I really recommend you to listen to all the videos of Jason Evert. He is someone that can explain the beauty of chastity far better than me on any given day.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

The various forms of chastity

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

 

[Art321]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

My bad!

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[someperson555]

As you are young and therefore probably remember high school, i hope you can better visiualize what i describe now and therefore better understand, why two people consenting is not enough to avoid problems. And this example should just demonstrate, how problems with two consenting people having sex can arise, it is by now means exhaustive and therefore sufficient to develop complete moral norms.

Starting around age of 15 interest in sexual activity arises, high school finishes around 18. Average school size might be around 100 pupils per year.
If it would be no problem for two consenting people to have sex, it should be no problem for all 100 to engage in sexual activity regularly, as there is supposedly nothing wrong about it and it can be fun.

So the 50 females of a hypothetical standard school have until age 17 more or less contionusly sex for 2 years.

Looking at pearl index,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table
,that means the following:

If they all use condoms for contraception and have typical failure rates, 50*(1-0.85^2) = 14 will give birth to a child before finishing high school. If they received excellent training in contraceptive application (which i think is what majority thinks would solve problem of teenage pregnancies), 50*(1-0.98^2)= 2 will give birth to a child before finishing high schools.

If they all use the pill for contraception and have typical failure rates, 50*(1-0.92^2) = 8 will give birth to a child before finishing high school. If they receive excellent training in contraceptive application (which would have to include excellent training regarding abuse of drug and alcohol, which society fails to achieve since dawn of time), the probability for 1 giving birth to a child before finishing high school is about 30%, so for every fourth school, there would be one pregnancy.

So assuming abortion is not a possibility and assuming the miracle of succesfully teaching teens to correctly use the pill and to avoid alcohol abuse does not happen and assuming giving birth to a child before finishing high school is a bad idea, the advice for teenagers must be:

Do seldom or preferably never have sex.

(And looking into the high school pregancy rates, which are about 13 per 1000 or in our numbers 0.3 per 50 females, it seems teenagers for whatever reason already live mostly along these lines (Or all take the pill with perfect use or a combination thereof). Otherwise the pregnancy rates would be about 10 times as high.)

And thats what we can conclude without ever looking into bible or church teaching, just by assuming that abortion is not preferable and becoming mother before finishing high school is not preferable either.

That the church teaches limitations beyond that is simply due to the bible having limitations beyond that. But we can already conclude that even with modern contraceptions, there would be ample reasons to limit sexual activity in respect to age, stability of partnership, family situation and so on. So that the church teaches limitations on sex is perfectly sensible.

If we now assume that contraception is also wrong, churchs teaching is nearly an unavoidable conclusion(*). Because with regular sex without contraception the probability of pregnancy is 85% per year and children are far better of with married parents, so one should marry if one wants to have sex, otherwise a third party - the child - will be hurt.
So either marry or abstain.

(*Ok, the loop holes of postponing marriage until pregancy happens or using NFP would still exist by looking in this narrow way at church teaching, but both options do not look that sensible and are certainly no sensible option for one night encounters.)

true, however, just a few things…
you are using the “slippery slope” argument, saying that if the church were to decriminalise sex out of marriage, then everyone would start having sex. this is not true because look at places where they dont practice the abrahamic faiths, such as mongolia and other parts of asia. these places practice religions which are indifferent to sex out of marriage, yet they have a lower divorce rate and a lower teen pregnancy rate (i think, im not sure about the teen pregnancy thing) but they have a lower divorce and abortion rate. for example, did you know thailand, the place that we western christians look down upon as “sexually immoral”, actually has a ban on abortion? thats right, this “sexually degenerate” country actually is more pro-life than the western “anti-sex” countries.
second, i actually dont think that sex out of marriage should be legalized, i meant lesser sexual acts (i dont want to get into detail), what i actually meant was that things like masturbation and oral sex should not be mortal sins. even in the bible it only says that sex is a sin, but it doesnt really include things like oral sex or masturbation in the 10 commandments. even Jesus mainly just talks about “all the way” sex. again, i dont want to get graphic here.
oral sex and masturbation are truly harmless, with no risk of pregnancy.
and lastly, if we go by your reasoning, then by all means overeating, smoking and drinking should also be mortal sins. think about it, overeating is allowed, and it is far more harmful than masturbation. overeating causes diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, cancer, depression, heart disease, etc, etc.yet for some reason, the church says thats okay? i would be 100% behind the church if it would just fix these inconsistencies. either legalize masturbation and oral sex and condoms, OR ban overeating, smoking, and drinking likewise by making them mortal sins.

 

[someperson555]

You are correct, it is a choice. The Church is there to guide us and help us make the right choices - to live according to the will of God.

She doesn’t force us into anything. She simply reveals the truth to us so that we may choose to take whatever path we’d like. We still have free will.

Does that make sense?

unfortuntely, the church does force us. if you decide to engage in pre-marital sex, masturbation, even sexual thoughts, you go to Hell. thats coercion at the least. i its like “freedom of speech” in north korea, yeah you can say what you want ( no ones going to physically stop you) but deal with the consequesnces if you say something the dictator doesnt like.
but as i said, even though i disagree with church teaching in some areas, i still follow it because i dont want to go to Hell. please dont think im some sort of a heretic. i follow the church laws as much as i can, and i certainly encourage others to do the same, regardless of how silly i find the laws to be.

 

[Lapey]

true, however, just a few things…
you are using the “slippery slope” argument, saying that if the church were to decriminalise sex out of marriage, then everyone would start having sex. this is not true because look at places where they dont practice the abrahamic faiths, such as mongolia and other parts of asia. these places practice religions which are indifferent to sex out of marriage, yet they have a lower divorce rate and a lower teen pregnancy rate (i think, im not sure about the teen pregnancy thing) but they have a lower divorce and abortion rate. for example, did you know thailand, the place that we western christians look down upon as “sexually immoral”, actually has a ban on abortion? thats right, this “sexually degenerate” country actually is more pro-life than the western “anti-sex” countries.
second, i actually dont think that sex out of marriage should be legalized, i meant lesser sexual acts (i dont want to get into detail), what i actually meant was that things like masturbation and oral sex should not be mortal sins. even in the bible it only says that sex is a sin, but it doesnt really include things like oral sex or masturbation in the 10 commandments. even Jesus mainly just talks about “all the way” sex. again, i dont want to get graphic here.
oral sex and masturbation are truly harmless, with no risk of pregnancy.
and lastly, if we go by your reasoning, then by all means overeating, smoking and drinking should also be mortal sins. think about it, overeating is allowed, and it is far more harmful than masturbation. overeating causes diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, cancer, depression, heart disease, etc, etc.yet for some reason, the church says thats okay? i would be 100% behind the church if it would just fix these inconsistencies. either legalize masturbation and oral sex and condoms, OR ban overeating, smoking, and drinkiing likewise by making mortal sins.

You are not hearing what people are telling you…truth is thruth, it does not change with the times. Sex outside of marriage has been wrong, is wrong and always will be wrong in the eyes of God, and His Church. The Church cannot simply “change Her mind” and instantly sex outside of wed lock is now ok, as long as its two concenting adults “in love”. Thats just silly. I want to follow God and His teachings, but I want His teachings to match what I want to do…this is a very imature way of seing things. Sorry for being so blunt.

This is whats wrong with society itself, the moral compass is our of calibration, if we calibrate the Church by secular standards…God help us!!!

 

[Lapey]

unfortuntely, the church does force us. if you decide to engage in pre-marital sex, masturbation, even sexual thoughts, you go to Hell. thats coercion at the least. i its like “freedom of speech” in north korea, yeah you can say what you want ( no ones going to physically stop you) but deal with the consequesnces if you say something the dictator doesnt like.
but as i said, even though i disagree with church teaching in some areas, i still follow it because i dont want to go to Hell. please dont think im some sort of a heretic. i follow the church laws as much as i can, and i certainly encourage others to do the same, regardless of how silly i find the laws to be.

I think you are confusing civil law and God’s law. The Church doesn’r force anything, God gave us the road map to live by, its your choice to follow the path or choose take your own road. God nor His Church can send anyone to hell, that is something you are free to choose.

Read CCC2567…He’ll tirelesly wait for you!!!

 

[carn]

true, however, just a few things…
you are using the “slippery slope” argument, saying that if the church were to decriminalise sex out of marriage, then everyone would start having sex.

The teachings of the Church are not meant to and devised solely with the effect in mind, but they are aimed at what is right and wrong. So by establishing that if everyone starting from age 15 has continously sex outside marriage, that then the consequences are very bad, we know that everyone having sex from age 15 continously sex outside marriage is morally wrong.
Therefore it is no surprise that the Church teaches guidelines, which among other things lead to the conclusion that everyone having sex outside marriage from age 15 is wrong. Whether or not anyone cares about these teachings is at first irrelevant, because the Church has to teach what is right and what is wrong and such behavior is at least wrong.

Whether or not the Church teaches and acts in a way that christians are likely to adhere to her teaching is another question.

and lastly, if we go by your reasoning, then by all means overeating, smoking and drinking should also be mortal sins. think about it, overeating is allowed, and it is far more harmful than masturbation. overeating causes diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, cancer, depression, heart disease, etc, etc.yet for some reason, the church says thats okay? i would be 100% behind the church if it would just fix these inconsistencies. either legalize masturbation and oral sex and condoms, OR ban overeating, smoking, and drinking likewise by making them mortal sins.

Where does the church say, that eating, smoking or drinking too such extent, that it damages ones health is ok?

It seems the Church since long taught that over-excessive consumption is a serious sin:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony

Now Thomas missed the diabetes as reason, why eating too much is a sin. But that does not change that the Church did and does teach that overconsumption is a serious sin and to some extent on the same level as fornification.

Regarding that currently the Church seems to be more worried about lust than about gluttony in western countries this could be, because non-adherence to her teaching kills annually about 3-4 million human beings in such countries. And alternatively it could also be a perception, because feeding the poor many want, but the teaching regarding sexuality of the church is rather unique in western soceties and therefore might receive more attention.
If all say “Feed the poor.” and all but a few say “Have sex whenever two of you want to.”, the impression that the few who differ care only about the latter theme and disregard the former, can easily arise.