Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[Faithdancer]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Thank you. This cuts right to the heart of the matter. Completely secular science has shown that having sex with multiple partners, even if it’s just one before marriage, tends to cumulatively weaken the bonds of any subsequent relationships. The Church’s teaching in regards to morals has always been borne out by cold, hard science. Not to mention that, yes, a faithful wife would be completely justified in feeling hurt that she was not important enough to her husband for him to save such a beautiful gift only for her, and vice versa.

To the OP, if you think having sex “makes you a man,” you have a very distorted and sad view of what it means to be a man. “You are thinking as the world thinks, not as God thinks.” And lest you think I’m just some self-righteous holy roller, I’ll confess that I am not a virgin, nor have I ever been married. But you won’t catch me trying to justify the wrongs I have done in my life, and fornication is wrong. Whether you intend it to or not, it does damage to you and your partner and both of your future spouses, should you ever get married.

Sorry to have just joined this dialogue. I must say, the original post has generated a great deal of “ink” here! I think that from the responses I’ve read everyone has done a great job of trying to gently correct the grave errors of reasoning of the OP. I can only agree that fornication is a grave sin, there is no justification for it, and any belief system that melds Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, etc. etc. with Roman Catholic Christianity is heresy, plain and simple.

 

[minkymurph]

In all the deliberation, debate, inquiry and opinions that have been expressed in this thread, I have now come to a conclusion on where I would stand on the matter.

To the OP, I wasn’t sure at the start, but now I would say yes, fornication is always a mortal sin. The reason I would say this is because the act of fornication always involves using someone else’s body for sexual gratification and nothing more.

Having sex with someone in order to establish if they are the ‘one’ is a very flawed view. I have opinions on that, so have others.

However, based on what Aquinas reasons in Summa Theologica in relation to Abraham and Hagar - I provided the link in a previous post - sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not formally married does not necessarily constitute fornication. As I understand it, based on what Aquinas reasons, fornication is the act of engaging in sexual intercourse for no other reason than gratifying oneself physically. If two people who are not formally married engage in sexual intercourse for another reason, such as procreation as in the case of Abraham and Hagar, then it does not necessarily constitute fornication.

Of course all this may need a little refinement and adjustment.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I agree with the virtues associated with sex. The way that particular comment was worded was sounding like we just need the working parts for compatibility. That to me is reducing it to mechanical action. It says to me, we don’t need the virtues, it’s just a deed, the parts work. which is not the case. and by the way get rid of the “you” statements, it is very off-putting. and never did i say that sex amounts to mind blowing orgasms and pleasure. Don’t assume.

I’m sorry, ejp. I thought about that after I posted it, that it might come across a bit aggressive, but by that time it was too late to go back and change it. So my apologies. I know you didn’t say that, but the wording of your original post made it sound like that was a major concern. What else do you mean by “not sexually compatible”? The way I see it, so long as the anatomy and the virtues are in place (which should be determined before marriage ever takes place), the rest is superfluous. Properly virtuous couples should be able to accomodate for the needs and deficiencies of the other. I suppose I’m just not understanding you clearly, and I apologize for making such personal remarks.