L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Its not that its untrue, one may practice not touching until engagement without sin. Its the fact that its not defined as church doctrine.
Since chastity is a virtue, chastity is a schooling in chastity. Virtue is the practice of the thing. It requires discipline, patience, human effort, cooperation with grace.It’s true chastity is a virtue
but I think what matters is intention.
Even if you engage in sexual acts before the marriage but are sure to marry the person then I don’t think that’s fornication.
“Israel an unfaithful wife” [Jeremiah 2:23-5:19] is a classic example of Jehovah’s hyperbole.
Where he compares adultery with idolatry.
One must stay dedicated to one person for their entire life just how we’re dedicated to only one true God.
If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.
Exodus 22:16
I understand why someone might think that way. If sex is supposed to be a statement of unreserved reciprocal love, then surely people who love each other enough to be married love each other enough to have sex. Except sex isn’t a statement of unreserved reciprocal love, marriage is the statement of unreserved reciprocal love. Sex is just one of the languages the statement is made in.It’s true chastity is a virtue
but I think what matters is intention.
Even if you engage in sexual acts before the marriage but are sure to marry the person then I don’t think that’s fornication.
Yet, that is contrary to what Scripture and the Church teaches us.Even if you engage in sexual acts before the marriage but are sure to marry the person then I don’t think that’s fornication.
Consider the potential for pregnancy. If a woman consents with a few guys - will the father be known? What respect is being shown to the potential child?But who do you hurt by having sex between consenting adults?
Not a good analogy IMHO. Sexual urges and attendant pleasures are more than incidental side-effects, as in the drug case you describe. In sex, they are indeed motivators and it is not improper to respond to them (in marriage). And for good reason.Here’s an analogy. Painkillers have the purpose of removing pain. To do this they have numerous effects like reducing heart rate, calming, and dissassociation. Those effects are not the purpose of the painkillers and someone who takes them because they want that feeling of being outside of themselves is abusing them.
What? Genesis 2:25 “ Now, both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame before each other.”Even Adam and Eve weren’t legitimately married.
Is it still the Eucharist if you eat it before it is consecrated?is it still a sin if you’re going to marry the person?