Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[minkymurph]

Every example you provided were examples of fornication or adultery. I asked for examples of premarital sex that was not fornication. You have not provided any.

My apologies. I did not understand you’re post to mean you were requesting examples of premarital sex that was not fornication. I understand that now and will address that below.

Not saying that at all. How did you interpret that from what I wrote?
There are two ways to have sex outside marriage, 1) fornication, and 2) adultey. Both are sins agaisnt the sixth commandment.

I didn’t. I didn’t fully understand what you what you wrote, and as such posed my response in the form of a question for the purpose of clarifying the point you were making and avoid misinterpretation.

I agree Lot and King David were examples of fornication. Having sex with your daughter while drunk can be defined as an evil act, as could keeping concubines. However, in King David’s case, what is missing is an evil intention. That is not to say that in the absence of an evil intention, an act is not evil. It can be. But in the absence of an evil intention the same act may not be evil. An act is not defined as evil purely on the basis of the act. There are occasions when the intention is also taken into account.

In the case of Abraham and Hagar, that’s different - for several reasons. In the first instance, Abraham was not condemned for it. In the second instance, God had not revealed the Law. As such, the element of full knowledge is not present in relation to the act, and mortal sin requires that element. In the third instance, it was common practice in that culture for a man to have children by her slave girl if his wife was barren, and the children were considered his sons and daughters. Abraham was not ‘trying Hagar out’ in order to establish if she was the ‘right’ one for him, and he was not merely gratifying himself physically. The whole purpose of Abraham having sexual relations with Hagar was to have children. As such, the procreative side of the sexual union was fulfilled. In the fourth instance, the children were considered members of the mans family and as such; safeguards existed concerning their welfare. Therefore, there was a commitment to any children produced, and often in fact the woman as the mother of the children.

All that said, I would say Abraham did not commit mortal sin and his act was not evil. One could argue this situation does not apply today. If one is dealing with the affluent West where slavery is illegal in addition to other acts. However it cannot be said it does not exist anywhere, and in fact cannot be said it does not exist at all in the Western world.
To use an extreme example, human trafficking is sadly becoming more and more common. If a woman is forced to work as a prostitute against her will, I would argue it would be completely unjust to say she is committing mortal sin. The act can be properly defined as fornication, sin and evil, and the man is committing mortal sin. But I would argue the woman is an innocent party in the act she is a victim, and full consent is absent. The same can be said for rape and incest, and in fact I would argue the same for what has be described today in politically correct terms as ‘pressure sex.’

 

[thewanderer]

If I may comment on your post.

Firstly I would say your comment that you would feel a little betrayed if your boyfriend tried to have sex with you before marriage, because it would be asking you to open yourself up, become vulnerable, and give myself fully to him even though he hasn’t made an unconditional commitment is a valid one. Sex outside marriage can leave a person feeling vulnerable, and if carried out prior to an unconditional commitment can leave a person feeling betrayed and deeply regretting having given themselves to that person.

Yes. I see all of this pain and hurt that comes from two people who have sex failing to live out an unconditional comitment to each other, I see the importance of actually waiting until such a comitment is made before having sex. Otherwise when they are asking to have sex with you they are essentially asking you to put yourself in a position that has huge potential to cause serious harm to you, and that is just not ok, especially coming from someone you have already developed such a close relationship with, I plan on marrying this man, if he were to ask me to open myself up to the possibility of such damage as can come from sex without bothering to actually make an unconditional comitment to me, that would be a serious betrayal on his part of my trust in him. I know not everyone sees it this way, but I certainly do, and so does he, which is part of the reason I was able to get to the point of trusting him enough to consider marrying him.

A significant percentage of the adult population would say they have at some point in their lives had sex with someone they wish they hadn’t. This is one of the reasons I would say it constitutes a sin - not because it’s just plain evil but because of the harm it can cause. It is true that sex within marriage does not always happen in the most loving of ways, but I would say a crucial element to a fulfilling sexual relationship is trust, and trust in a relationship is established through sustained commitment. Where commitment is wanting, the element of trust will likewise be wanting.

What I see as problematic today, is not sex outside of marriage, but marriage itself. Many people see no need to marry. Cohabiting is not considered scandalous by society in general, (and before anyone jumps on me I stress the term ‘in general,’ I appreciate others on this thread would be of the view it is) neither are divorce, single parents, having children to different fathers, and the law affords couples who cohabit the same rights as married couples. Consequently, for a lot of people marriage is valueless, so they are not going to think it is a precondition for sex and having children.

It’s a funny world. On one side of the coin people who are gay want the right to marry, and the other heterosexuals who want the right not to. Recently, a fellow student in my year told me he was gay in a manner that suggested I would never have guessed and it was supposed to come as a surprise, (I actually thought it was obvious) and he was expecting a reaction. I was tempted to say, 'Well guess what? I’m heterosexual, I’m married, I’ve always been married to the same person, we live in the same house, he is the father of all my children, and our next wedding anniversary will be our 25th. Beat that for being unconventional!

However, being charitable and believing discretion is the better part of valor I didn’t say it. Please don’t think I’m being flippant in relation to your views, just trying to add a little humor to the discussion.

No, I think there is a lot of wisdom in what your saying, in that I’m not sure if people understand the point of marriage, they don’t see what it is really supposed to, and really can, be, and that that helps obscure the whole question of why it isn’t ok to have sex beforehand. I come from a broken home. I understand just how horrible it can be when such a relationship goes wrong, when someone fails to live up to their comitment. But, in my case, it was a very onesided failure, my mother never failed in her comitment, and because of her unbelievable example, despite coming fromo a broken home, I’ve seen what the comitment involved in marriage is truly supposed to be. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is all so clear to me precisely because I have seen the extent of her comitment even in the face of such complete and utter betrayal as was shown by my father. Don’t get me wrong, my mother was not a doormat, when it became clear that it was unhealthy for us children she moved us all to a different country and took on the task of raising us overseas. But she never spoke bitterly or angrily of him to us, never even dreamed of dating anyone else. She had made a comitment, when she said her vows on theirr marriage day, she truly meant them. And it is exactly her kind of comitment which is supposed to be given by every person on their wedding day, that is precisely what marriage is about. A complete and unconditional comitment, not many people live up to that today, or even seem tto realize that that is whats going on in when they say their vows, but that is the truth of it. And it is precisely within the context of such a comitment that sex is supposed to exist, not just between two people who are thinking about possibly making such a comitment in the future. Sure, lots of people who are married fail in their comitment, more likely they nevver realized exactly what sort of comitment they were supposed to be making in the first place. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t wait for marriage, it just means one should be very, very careful in choosing a spouse. Make sure you find someone who understands the full importance of the comitment involved in marriage, make sure that they will actually make such a full and unconditional comitment to you on your wedding day. The solution is not to start having sex with people who haven’t and possibly never will make such a comitment, its to be extra careful in your selection of who to marry.

 

[MarkInOregon]

And married people ALWAYS value sex the way it’s supposed to be? If you ask me the stats of almost 90% of Catholic women using ABC ought to speak for itself. If married people can have unholy sex than unmarried people are capable of having sex that isn’t a mortal sin.

Please explain how a married couple committing a mortal sin has any bearing on the nature of the sin committed by unmarried people having sex.

Thank you,
Mark

 

[davidv]

My apologies. I did not understand you’re post to mean you were requesting examples of premarital sex that was not fornication. I understand that now and will address that below.

I didn’t. I didn’t fully understand what you what you wrote, and as such posed my response in the form of a question for the purpose of clarifying the point you were making and avoid misinterpretation.

I agree Lot and King David were examples of fornication. Having sex with your daughter while drunk can be defined as an evil act, as could keeping concubines. However, in King David’s case, what is missing is an evil intention. That is not to say that in the absence of an evil intention, an act is not evil. It can be. But in the absence of an evil intention the same act may not be evil. An act is not defined as evil purely on the basis of the act. There are occasions when the intention is also taken into account.

This is not in accord with Catholic moral teaching which states that an inherently evil act (e.g., fornication) cannot become moral because of a moral intention or moral circumstance.

In the case of Abraham and Hagar, that’s different - for several reasons. In the first instance, Abraham was not condemned for it. In the second instance, God had not revealed the Law. As such, the element of full knowledge is not present in relation to the act, and mortal sin requires that element. In the third instance, it was common practice in that culture for a man to have children by her slave girl if his wife was barren, and the children were considered his sons and daughters. Abraham was not ‘trying Hagar out’ in order to establish if she was the ‘right’ one for him, and he was not merely gratifying himself physically. The whole purpose of Abraham having sexual relations with Hagar was to have children. As such, the procreative side of the sexual union was fulfilled. In the fourth instance, the children were considered members of the mans family and as such; safeguards existed concerning their welfare. Therefore, there was a commitment to any children produced, and often in fact the woman as the mother of the children.

All that said, I would say Abraham did not commit mortal sin and his act was not evil.

This conclusion is not supported by Church teaching.

One could argue this situation does not apply today. If one is dealing with the affluent West where slavery is illegal in addition to other acts. However it cannot be said it does not exist anywhere, and in fact cannot be said it does not exist at all in the Western world.
To use an extreme example, human trafficking is sadly becoming more and more common. If a woman is forced to work as a prostitute against her will, I would argue it would be completely unjust to say she is committing mortal sin. The act can be properly defined as fornication, sin and evil, and the man is committing mortal sin. But I would argue the woman is an innocent party in the act she is a victim, and full consent is absent. The same can be said for rape and incest, and in fact I would argue the same for what has be described today in politically correct terms as ‘pressure sex.’

The lack consent does not diminish the evil of the act. It only diminishes the culpability.

 

[ejp123]

What if you wait for marriage and find out after you marry that you are not sexually compatible with your spouse?

 

[prodigalson2011]

What if you wait for marriage and find out after you marry that you are not sexually compatible with your spouse?

So long as one party is a male, the other a female, and both have functional sex organs, they are sexually compatible. Unlike their often frivolous and short lived secular counterparts, Catholic marriages are not founded upon the other’s sexual performance. Overemphasis on one’s personal pleasure is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Marriage is about commitment, support, family, faith, and self giving. That last part is key. A marriage will not last if either party is focused on what they’re getting out of it.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Sex itself is not intrinsically sinful, as you say. But fornication is.

Basically, one of the main reasons we have marriage is because sex is supposed to be monogamous. Monogamy is something that you did not cover in your original post. Sex is something that is to be enjoyed between one man and one woman who are bound to each other in holy matrimony, which by the way is a sacramental commitment that the two make. And that bond is FOR LIFE. This is the way sex is designed by God. To have sex outside of this framework is sinful because it is a misuse and distortion of that which is good: sex. And if you take a look, Jesus definitely talked about monogamy and marriage in the gospels. Fornication is essentially the act of having sex without that commitment. I assure you that Jesus, a practicing Jew and the Son of the very one go gave us the law, was against fornication.

 

[ejp123]

So long as one party is a male, the other a female, and both have functional sex organs, they are sexually compatible. Unlike their often frivolous and short lived secular counterparts, Catholic marriages are not founded upon the other’s sexual performance. Overemphasis on one’s personal pleasure is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Marriage is about commitment, support, family, faith, and self giving. That last part is key. A marriage will not last if either party is focused on what they’re getting out of it.

I don’t agree. This idea reduces the act into something purely mechanical. Sexual compatibility is not just about the physical parts working.

 

[CompSciGuy]

So long as one party is a male, the other a female, and both have functional sex organs, they are sexually compatible. Unlike their often frivolous and short lived secular counterparts, Catholic marriages are not founded upon the other’s sexual performance. Overemphasis on one’s personal pleasure is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Marriage is about commitment, support, family, faith, and self giving. That last part is key. A marriage will not last if either party is focused on what they’re getting out of it.

This is beautiful and the reason why Catholic teaching regarding sex and marriage is so much better than secular society’s teaching! Catholic marriage is based on trust, acceptance and self-sacrifice, while on the other hand so many people in our world today think that this trust and commitment is only to last as long as the other person is able to please them. A relationship, including a sexual one, is something that can be worked toward.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I don’t agree. This idea reduces the act into something purely mechanical. Sexual compatibility is not just about the physical parts working.

Yes, it is. If the ability to give you mind blowing orgasms (forgive my bluntness) is anywhere on your list of the most important criteria for a prospective spouse, you are not ready to get married.

Actually, I would say it’s you who is reducing it to something mechanical. You are reducing the act to a quantifiable amount of physical pleasure. And worse is that it’s a completely selfish quantification at that. On the contrary, by acknowledging the mechanical nature of the act and physiological consequences (intercourse and pleasure, namely), one can put them in their proper priority and context in the greater scheme of marriage, which includes all those things I mentioned previously. This is the truly spiritual view of sexuality. When viewed in its proper place, in subservience to those higher elements of marriage, the pinnacle of which is self giving and sacrifice, it becomes obvious that true love should be willing to SACRIFICE its own pleasure for the good of the other. Love gives without expecting in return. It is better to give than to receive. Love does not seek reward. If you only love someone for the pleasure they give you, then you do not love them. You love your own pleasure; and you have reduced the person into a mechanism towards that end.

 

[minkymurph]

This is not in accord with Catholic moral teaching which states that an inherently evil act (e.g., fornication) cannot become moral because of a moral intention or moral circumstance.

This conclusion is not supported by Church teaching.

Catholic teaching also states the elements of grave matter, full knowledge and full consent must be present in order for a mortal sin to be committed. If these elements are not present, it would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching to state categorically a mortal sin has been committed. An act may be evil, but that does not in itself mean a person engaged in the act commits mortal sin purely because the act itself is evil as the essential elements stipulated by the Church are not present.

The lack consent does not diminish the evil of the act. It only diminishes the culpability.

Absolutely. Lack of consent does not diminish the evil of the act of rape or incest. But what is in question is does the victim commit mortal sin? If in the case of rape or incest lack of consent only diminishes culpability, does that mean the victim has committed mortal sin? Or is it at least possible they may not have?

 

[minkymurph]

This is not in accord with Catholic moral teaching which states that an inherently evil act (e.g., fornication) cannot become moral because of a moral intention or moral circumstance.

This conclusion is not supported by Church teaching.

I would just like to add, it may be the case the Church teaches Abraham and Hagar committed mortal sin. In which case, it can be argued my conclusions are not supported by Church teaching. However, if the Church does not teach this, it cannot be stated categorically this conclusion in not supported by Church teaching.

There is no doubt as to the teaching of the Church in relation to David’s act of adultery. The Church is perfectly clear on that. Therefore, the question is, are they equally as clear concerning Abraham’s relations with Hagar, and does the Church teach they committed mortal sin?

 

[Corki]

I would just like to add, it may be the case the Church teaches Abraham and Hagar committed mortal sin. In which case, it can be argued my conclusions are not supported by Church teaching. However, if the Church does not teach this, it cannot be stated categorically this conclusion in not supported by Church teaching.

There is no doubt as to the teaching of the Church in relation to David’s act of adultery. The Church is perfectly clear on that. Therefore, the question is, are they equally as clear concerning Abraham’s relations with Hagar, and does the Church teach they committed mortal sin?

Yes. And furthermore, Abraham’s relations with Hagar were a sign of his lack of faith in God’s promise, compounding the sin.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes. And furthermore, Abraham’s relations with Hagar were a sign of his lack of faith in God’s promise, compounding the sin.

Your reply is problematic in that it is not consistent with Aquinas’ reasoning in Summa Theologica Art.2 reply to objection 3.

Here is the link.

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article6

In short, Aquinas reasons Abraham did not go to his handmaiden with the purpose of fornication, and states categorically he did not sin. (Reply to objection 2) As far as I understand it, he further reasons it was not fornication as a form of matrimony existed. Although in fairness, it may the case that the Church today would reject this proposition.

Concerning his reasoning in relation to rape, (I know you did not comment on this. The reason I mention it is due to the fact Aquinas further deals with this topic which can be found at the same link and it was discussed) he does not categorically state the victim has not committed mortal sin, but I would argue he infers it as a consequence of the manner in which he reasons on the subject. Aquinas deals solely with violator, and under the Law of Israel, no guilt was attributed to a woman if she was violated and she faced no penalty. To attribute guilt and introduce a penalty (that of mortal sin on the part of the victim) at a later stage would be in excess of what was demanded under the Law of Israel.

 

[Corki]

Your reply is problematic in that it is not consistent with Aquinas’ reasoning in Summa Theologica Art.2 reply to objection 3.

Here is the link.

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article6

In short, Aquinas reasons Abraham did not go to his handmaiden with the purpose of fornication, and states categorically he did not sin. (Reply to objection 2) As far as I understand it, he further reasons it was not fornication as a form of matrimony existed. Although in fairness, it may the case that the Church today would reject this proposition.

Thanks; my Thomistics are weak. I see where you are going though. In the time of Abraham, it was permitted to have relations with a servant in the household. In the time of David, the “extra” wives weren’t the problem, it was going after the wife of another man.

As such, though, neither of those OT examples is fornication as defined in the OP.

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks; my Thomistics are weak. I see where you are going though. In the time of Abraham, it was permitted to have relations with a servant in the household. In the time of David, the “extra” wives weren’t the problem, it was going after the wife of another man.

As such, though, neither of those OT examples is fornication as defined in the OP.

I wouldn’t say mine were great either, but I have a particular interest in Aquinas.

You are absolutely right in that neither of these examples in the OT are examples of fornication as defined the OP. What put me onto this, was my argument centered not on fornication is never a mortal sin, but rather not under every circumstance and under every eventuality, and it would be unjust to label the act ‘evil’ under every circumstance and every eventuality.

It’s interesting to note Aquinas reasons Abraham and Hagar did not commit fornication. The reason I find this interesting is due to the fact it has been proposed by some posters sex with someone you are not married to is always fornication, and that is black and white. Based on what Aquinas states, I’m not so sure it is black and white.

Forgive the long post, but what do think of this situation? Sadly, I was unable to marry in Church. The reason being my parents would have freaked out had we married in my my in-laws church, and his parents would have freaked out had we married my parents church.
At the time, neither of us attended a church or were affiliated with any denomination other than through our parents. My parents are dead now, but my in-laws are still alive, and they wouldn’t even come to my kids baptism 'cos it wasn’t in their church. We went on holiday together when we were engaged, and met a German guy in Austria who turned out to be a lay preacher. He said he could marry us, but he had to marry us in Germany. We were tempted to go to Germany, get married, and come home and tell our parents they could stop agonizing over where we were going to married. A friend of mine said we should have, but not told our parents and had a laugh on our anniversary every year.

Lots of people in our situation lived together not because they didn’t want to marry, they did, but at that time it could actually be quite dangerous for people of different religions to marry, in fact you could have been killed. Some people left the country and went to Scotland or England to marry, and many peoples families disowned them. However, If they lived together and didn’t marry it was tolerated to a greater extent. When I was going out with my husband, he had a bullet taped to his front door. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I had a good rapport with a couple of characters who were members of the local mafia, and they put a stop to things. When things cooled down, lots of them married at the earliest opportunity. Many of them had a very quiet affair as it was the marriage itself that meant so much to them, and they could at last do so openly and safely.

This is why I was interested in what Aquinas had to say in that, if I understand it correctly, a matrimonial arrangement of some sort existed. Perhaps the same could be said for the couples I mentioned above? I know the OP was not posing a scenario such as this, but this is what led me down the line of arguments I have presented, in that categorizing the actions of the couples I mentioned above as ‘fornication,’ and labeling it ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ seems so cruel. I suppose that’s one of reasons I feel strongly about the fact marriage has become so devalued, because I know people who were disowned by their family and risk their lives to marry. Still, I can’t expect anyone now to fully appreciate that, and in sense I’m glad they don’t.

On a final note, I was disappointed to find out I don’t need to convalidate my marriage, it would have given me the perfect excuse for the wedding I would have liked but couldn’t have. Sometimes I think we should have got married in Germany, it would have quite romantic. :kiss4you:

 

[ejp123]

Yes, it is. If the ability to give you mind blowing orgasms (forgive my bluntness) is anywhere on your list of the most important criteria for a prospective spouse, you are not ready to get married.

Actually, I would say it’s you who is reducing it to something mechanical. You are reducing the act to a quantifiable amount of physical pleasure. And worse is that it’s a completely selfish quantification at that. On the contrary, by acknowledging the mechanical nature of the act and physiological consequences (intercourse and pleasure, namely), one can put them in their proper priority and context in the greater scheme of marriage, which includes all those things I mentioned previously. This is the truly spiritual view of sexuality. When viewed in its proper place, in subservience to those higher elements of marriage, the pinnacle of which is self giving and sacrifice, it becomes obvious that true love should be willing to SACRIFICE its own pleasure for the good of the other. Love gives without expecting in return. It is better to give than to receive. Love does not seek reward. If you only love someone for the pleasure they give you, then you do not love them. You love your own pleasure; and you have reduced the person into a mechanism towards that end.

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.

 

[loro]

i had sex at a very early age, and you know what, im glad i did, i really dont feel any guilt for it. and frankly i dont want to. it was a special event in my life which i cherish and remember with fondness it the day i became a man. if it truly offended God then i am sorry FOR OFFENDING GOD. but i am not sorry for having sex. i mean how inhibited do some people have to be to feel guilt over something that is completely natural?

But please consider, that you probably did offend your future wife. You probably did offend this girl’s future husband. Even if you think you didn’t offend yourself or this girl - this event might have an impact on your future marriage. And the marriage of this girl. And thank God this girl didn’t get pregnant at that stage. This would cause a lot of harm to many people, the child including.

but thats love, that is different from sex. i think its here where my main problem is. (perhaps you can help me with this) i have always seen sex as something different than love. you can love someone without having sex, and vice versa. why does sex matter so much? why are you only allowed to have sex with one person who you love? as long as you dont over indulge and you dont value sex more than the well being of others, what is the problem?

I’m sure you don’t mean that. If you do - imagine your wife had sex with some other man and then told you: “i have always seen sex as something different than love. you can love someone without having sex, and vice versa. why does sex matter so much? why are you only allowed to have sex with one person who you love? as long as you dont over indulge and you dont value sex more than the well being of others, what is the problem?” what would you say?

 

[prodigalson2011]

But please consider, that you probably did offend your future wife. You probably did offend this girl’s future husband. Even if you think you didn’t offend yourself or this girl - this event might have an impact on your future marriage. And the marriage of this girl. And thank God this girl didn’t get pregnant at that stage. This would cause a lot of harm to many people, the child including.

: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.

 

[Sister_Terese]

“I had sex at a very early age, and you know what, im glad i did, i really dont feel any guilt for it. and frankly i dont want to. it was a special event in my life which i cherish and remember with fondness it the day i became a man. if it truly offended God then i am sorry FOR OFFENDING GOD. but i am not sorry for having sex. i mean how inhibited do some people have to be to feel guilt over something that is completely natural?”

“The day I became a man?” Sex doesn’t make you a man. Sex doesn’t make a woman either. Maturity comes to each one of us as we, hopefully, grow in virtue.