My wife had sex with a previous boyfriend but as it was also prior to her baptism it doesn’t bother me on any level. She is a new creation. Certainly if one’s past sexual sins are washed away by baptism or sacramental absolution, one has a clean slate, no?That’s definitely the message we got - that the importance of sex was being able to fully give yourself to your husband. And if you’d been intimate with another man you couldn’t fully give yourself because you’d already given part of it away. I remember an example in one book (I think it was I Kissed Dating Goodbye, but I’m not sure) of a girl on her wedding, but all her exes were coming up too because the guy couldn’t just marry her, he was taking on all her exes that she had been intimate with as well.
That’s definitely the verses we were taught - that the Bible said anyone you had one sex with, you were becoming one flesh with and that was binding in God’s eyes.
Certainly a widow or widower does not sin by entering into a second marriage; indeed the second marriage is a holy affair and a sacrament. That being said, St. Paul does teach in Scripture that it is better (though not required) for a widow to remain single. The early Church even had a consecrated “order of Widows” who were fully dedicated to Church ministry. Some advocate for restoring the Order of Widows in the modern Church (just as the Order of Virgins was restored after Vatican II). In addition, the Eastern Churches do treat the second marriages of Widows and Widowers as a “lesser” marriage; even the ceremony is less joyful (though of course it is not considered sinful by any means).I guess marrying as a widow or widower is out then…
St. Paul was very insistent in his preference that young widows ought to remarry, rather than becoming a nuisance to the community. See 1 Timothy 5:14:Certainly a widow or widower does not sin by entering into a second marriage; indeed the second marriage is a holy affair and a sacrament. That being said, St. Paul does teach in Scripture that it is better (though not required) for a widow to remain single. The early Church even had a consecrated “order of Widows” who were fully dedicated to Church ministry. Some advocate for restoring the Order of Widows in the modern Church (just as the Order of Virgins was restored after Vatican II). In addition, the Eastern Churches do treat the second marriages of Widows and Widowers as a “lesser” marriage; even the ceremony is less joyful (though of course it is not considered sinful by any means).
He encouraged *younger * widows to remarry for practical reasons, not because of its spiritual worth.St. Paul was very insistent in his preference that young widows ought to remarry, rather than becoming a nuisance to the community. See 1 Timothy 5:14:
“14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.”
Well, St. Paul thought that marriage would be spiritually better for younger widows–so it was both practical and spiritual reasoning.He encouraged *younger * widows to remarry for practical reasons, not because of its spiritual worth.
But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. (1 Cor 7:8)
Don’t get me wrong…I am certainly not in any way judging widows / widowers who remarry. The Church has always allowed it and the marriage remains a holy state. Taking this a step further, it is better to not marry at all… we know that the Church teaches that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage, even if marriage remains good, holy, and lawful.
It is offensive to suggest that a tape victim has a soul tie to a rapist. It also makes no sense. Unless we have degrees of soul ties to every person we interact with in a positive or negative way. Which we don’t.That is exactly why I recommended praying to God to break the soul tie. Soul ties are meant to be a positive thing, but they can be negative. We need to break the negative ones
There is no such thing as a “soul tie”. People make decisions to love or not to love, to be friends or to break a friendship etc. Sex is significant and should be part of a loving, marital relationship. However I would argue that in order for the unitive aspect of sex to be fully binding and loving, it must occur within the sacrament of marriage and be reinforced by the kinds of everyday non-sexual actions that actually make up the reality of love.It is offensive to suggest that a tape victim has a soul tie to a rapist. It also makes no sense. Unless we have degrees of soul ties to every person we interact with in a positive or negative way. Which we don’t.
That’s a very interesting point–that this might be something real, without necessarily being either spiritual or permanent.Stockholm syndrome often occurs when a person held captive bonds with their captor. It is seen time and time again even when a man holds a boy captive. A popular reference is Elizabeth Smart is still recovering from her ordeal with her captor. The Stockholm syndrome is physically measured by the dopamine and serotonin activity in the brain. When the encounter is not devistatingly aggressive (date rape, captivity, family) then there is chemical response bonding the dopamine to the seritonin and creating that bond. Yes, it takes work and thoughtful planning to break such chemical bonds. In severe cases of aggression and captivity, these bonds do not link the dopamine to serotonin. There is a long lasting imprinting that will indeed need to also be broke and reprogrammed before a healthy relashionship.
Right.There is no such thing as a “soul tie”. People make decisions to love or not to love, to be friends or to break a friendship etc. Sex is significant and should be part of a loving, marital relationship.** However I would argue that in order for the unitive aspect of sex to be fully binding and loving, it must occur within the sacrament of marriage and be reinforced by the kinds of everyday non-sexual actions that actually make up the reality of love.**
Overcome. Sometimes people over come, sometimes they don’t. Oprah, she was object of her uncle, & it appears she’s not overcome it. However, she has transformed it and used it as a platform to voice the wrongness of it in order to help others.That’s a very interesting point–that this might be something real, without necessarily being either spiritual or permanent.
So a bond with a past sexual partner is real, but something that can be overcome.
Note that the unbreakable union is what “God hath joined together” and we know from the Catholic teachings that the ***properly ratified ***and consummated union between the baptized cannot be dissolved, so it is not merely coitus the forms the unbreakable bond.That’s definitely the message we got - that the importance of sex was being able to fully give yourself to your husband. And if you’d been intimate with another man you couldn’t fully give yourself because you’d already given part of it away. I remember an example in one book (I think it was I Kissed Dating Goodbye, but I’m not sure) of a girl on her wedding, but all her exes were coming up too because the guy couldn’t just marry her, he was taking on all her exes that she had been intimate with as well.
That’s definitely the verses we were taught - that the Bible said anyone you had one sex with, you were becoming one flesh with and that was binding in God’s eyes.
Exactly. So basically the unbreakable bond is the sacrament of marriage. Let’s face it, many people enter into marriage with prior sexual “baggage”, and yeah, this can negatively affect the marriage and ideally it’s better to just wait until marriage, but it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re bonded for life to a person who is no longer part of your life or a person who may have abused you. I also am a believer that sacramental grace in marriage and the love of one’s spouse has the ability to heal many wounds that can resurface in marriage.Note that the unbreakable union is what “God hath joined together” and we know from the Catholic teachings that the ***properly ratified ***and consummated union between the baptized cannot be dissolved, so it is not merely coitus the forms the unbreakable bond.
Catechism
1605 … The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” 95
95 Mt 19:6.
Matthew 19
3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying:
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.