Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[prodigalson2011]

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called “objectively evil”. its just two people expressing physical intimacy. i just dont see where the “grave evil” is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.

The problem is that if that final commitment has not been made, they are giving themselves totally to someone who may or may not be the person they should be giving that to. Sex forms strong bonds and leaves lasting marks that carry over into marriage. The statistics support church teaching: those couples who wait until they’re married to have sex have a much lower divorce rate. Those who follow entirely the Church’s teaching, particularly on the issue of contraception, have the lowest divorce rate of all: somewhere around 1%. Compare that to the over 60% rate of divorce of the average marriage. Sex is not necessary to form a deep connection. Again, you’re rationalizing your lusts.

God gave us the Church to hold onto and teach the truths that our disordered minds cannot find on our own. Your mind, like all of ours, is clouded by sin and subject to temptation. Remember the serpent in the garden? “Oh, it’s not sinful. The Church just wants to deprive you and repress you.” Lies. If you trust Jesus, why do you not trust His promise to protect his Church and guide it into the fullness of truth?

with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or “friends with benefits” in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

It is a sin because you are not to give it to anyone until you have found that special person, and once you have done so, you should be married. Read the research. Having sex with multiple partners, or even just with your intended betrothed, before marriage greatly reduces the strength of the marital bond and makes divorce much more likely. Sex is not a test drive. Once you’ve taken it out on the road, you can’t bring it back to the dealership.

 

[thewanderer]

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called “objectively evil”. its just two people expressing physical intimacy.
i just dont see where the “grave evil” is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend,** its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.**

Since when does not having sex mean you keep each other at arms length??? I’m sorry, but I kind of take offense at what you are saying here. You are claiming that a couple is somehow not being affectionate if they don’t have sex. If you will note my first post in this thread you will see that I am currently in a serious relationship, without sex. Clearly me and my boyfriend have no way of showing affection to one another because we always hold each other at arms length. Yes, clearly there is no way to show affection to ones boyfriend unless you guys are having sex.

with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or “friends with benefits” in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

Again, I have serious issues with this. So you think so little of your gift of self in sex that you’re wiling to give yourself away to anyone who just might possibly be the person who is willing to commit to you unconditionally. No, I should probably take that back, that is possibly a little unfair, you have already shown that you just simply don’t understand what sex is actually supposed to be like, so it really is more likely that you just don’t realize the kind of statement would say by having sex with someone who has not yet made an unconditional comitment to you. Like I’ve said before, I just don’t get it. I just simply do not understand why people are willing to give themselves away so cheaply, why they don’t realize that they have such dignity that they deserve the context of an unconditional relationship for their gift of self. I just truly do not understand.

 

[davidv]

look, i would agree with you if what you said was actually true, that the church does hold sex to be “sacred”. but if thats the case, then why is it that priests cannot marry?

Please stick to the topic, this is a red herring. The demands of the priesthood have nothing to do with the sacredness of sex.

if sex is really a holy thing, then why is it that priests and nuns must abstain from that “icky sex”?

Get a grip. Sex isn’t “icky”.

another thing, i will CONCEDE to you IF the church teaches that ther will be sex in heaven. because if sex is really such a special thing, then it must have some purpose in heaven too. since after all sex is intrinsic to human nature.

so i will admit that i am wrong if there is sex in heaven.

Whether you admit anything or not is irrelevant. You personal opinion does nothing change the definitive teaching of the Church that proclaims, without error, that fornication is a grave sin, which becomes mortal if requisite knowledge and consent is present.

 

[thewanderer]

look, i would agree with you if what you said was actually true, that the church does hold sex to be “sacred”. but if thats the case, then why is it that priests cannot marry? if sex is really a holy thing, then why is it that priests and nuns must abstain from that “icky sex”?
another thing, i will CONCEDE to you IF the church teaches that ther will be sex in heaven. because if sex is really such a special thing, then it must have some purpose in heaven too. since after all sex is intrinsic to human nature.

so i will admit that i am wrong if there is sex in heaven.

Why can’t priests marry? because the Church recognizes that if they were married it would make it a heck of a lot harder for them to truly devote themselves to their flock. I am more than grateful that there are so many men willing to forego the pleasures of marriage for the sake of being able to devote themselves entirely to us laymen. It is a deep comitment they make and a great sacrifice which they willingly take up for the sake of better being able to serve us laymen. It is not a doctrinal but a disciplinary matter, in other words, it is technically something which the Church could change if She saw fit. I however, am extremely glad for this discipline, Priests are already over-taxed as it is, if they also had to worry about their own families on top of everything else they already have to do we laypeople would surely feel the pinch. :sad_yes:

As for the idea that you will concede to me if the Church teaches that there will be sex in heaven, honestly, I’m not quite sure what to say to you. You come on here claiming that you have a fool-proof argument, you, after spending time thinking about it, have come up with a proof that fornication is not a mortal sin. When people showed you that your proof did not hold up, you started throwing other excuses out there, now you are coming up with some condition that unless the Church teaches that people have sex in heaven then it obviously hates sex and thinks its disgusting. How does that even begin to follow? There are theologians who hold that people won’t eat in heaven. They say that all of our needs and desires will be fulfilled through the beatific vision, and that any natural requirements like eating, sleeping, you can add sex to this list if you like, will be filled supernaturally. Saying this does not mean that eating and sleeping are intrinsically evil, so if you want to show me that you have a logical proof that you are right and I am wrong based on the fact that the Church doesn’t teach that there will be ssex in heaven, please enlighten me. What the Church teaches about heaven is that everything we need to be completely and utterly happy will be there. And that it is ultimately through the Beatific vision that this will happen. Some theologions posit that that means all of our other functions will be supernaturally fulfilled, others posit that they will not all be supernaturally fulfilled, as the scripture says “eye hath not seen nor ear heard”. Beyond the fact that we will be perfectly happy through enjoying the beatific vision not much else is posited definitively about heaven. Beyond those points it is pretty much personal speculation. And honestly, the way you keep throwing one random thing out there after another really makes it seem like you are just grasping at straws to find some way to justify fornication to yourself. Honestly, I feel really sorry for people who don’t understand the full beauty of sex as it is supposed to be, and I sincerely hope you will take some time to think about it honestly so that you can recognize just how amazing it is supposed to be, and so start to unerstand why it is cheap and degrading to give yourself to someone who has not made a permanant, unconditional promise and commitment to you. It just isn’t worth it, and it will make it much harder to have truly meaningful sex because you will become so used to seeing sex as “just sex”. Please think about it honestly, it really is for your benefit.

 

[Usige]

Since when does not having sex mean you keep each other at arms length??? I’m sorry, but I kind of take offense at what you are saying here. You are claiming that a couple is somehow not being affectionate if they don’t have sex. If you will note my first post in this thread you will see that I am currently in a serious relationship, without sex. Clearly me and my boyfriend have no way of showing affection to one another because we always hold each other at arms length. Yes, clearly there is no way to show affection to ones boyfriend unless you guys are having sex.

:clapping:

romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.

Are you implying that sex is what causes “deep connections” to form? How about talking and getting to know someone? Trust is where those connections begin and communications, not physical intimacy, is the key to building trust. Too often people base their relationship on sex. The dopamine and adrenaline from that early passion is seen as love. When that passion eventually dampens the couple speaks about falling out of love. With a firm foundation of marriage, the chemicals released during sex strengthens the bond rather than acting as a fake facade that crumbles once the flames of early love fade.

So why is it that Christ saying that fornication defiles a person is not enough to dissuade you? If you are a Christian Catholic why are the teachings of the Word made flesh not enough for you?

 

[underacloud]

underacloud:

So the Church also teaches that it’s wrong to lie.

I don’t understand your point at all. Are you saying fornication would be OK if a couple lied about their marital status?

Naturally, the part about causing scandal was not the main issue. Note the language: “Moreover, it is a grave scandal…”. Moreover meaning in addition to…the scandal caused is not the primary reason why fornication is wrong.

YOU said it caused scandal, I’m saying if you lied —no scandal.

Firstly, I didn’t say it causes scandal…the Church says it causes scandal. I merely quoted the relevant section dealing with fornication…

Secondly, your solution of simply lying is a poor one. But debates about lying to your own children about such important matters is a whole other tangent and belongs in its own thread…if indeed you think it’s a good thing to be done.

Thirdly, as I stated, scandal is not the primary reason that fornication is a sin. Even if you “deal” with the issue of scandal, the other reasons for fornication being a sin remain. So let’s not obfuscate the issue any further with the distraction of scandal.

 

[minkymurph]

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called “objectively evil”. its just two people expressing physical intimacy.
i just dont see where the “grave evil” is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.
with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or “friends with benefits” in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

That’s were I was coming from - in that the issue is not clear cut. To me, describing the act of two people who have deep affection for each other and an intention to commit engaging in sexual activity as ‘evil’ is over the top.

Where I have difficulty with your line of reasoning is your statement, ‘fornication isn’t as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to marry, and it’s between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner.’ It suggests that in order to establish whether or not you want to marry them you need to have sex. I’m not saying this is what you mean. This is how, rightly or wrongly, I am interpreting your statement.

I have heard it said that in order to know whether someone is right for you, you need to know if you are physically compatible which to me, is a very flawed line of reasoning. Engaging in sexual activity for the purpose of ‘trying someone out,’ for want of a better phrase, in order to establish if they are that ‘special person’ does degrade the act.

Anyone who has been married for any length of time will tell you there are many times when you are not sexually compatible. There are many times in a marriage couples are not deeply connected and happy to keep each other at arms length.

Personally speaking, if part of the criterion was physical compatibility, I think the majority of women would stay single.

Sorry guys, I know that’s an incredibly prejudiced statement. Not being serious. Just having a little joke to lighten the mood.

 

[minkymurph]

I would like to add I heard a man on a radio broadcast say recently sex is overrated, and he would rather have a cup of tea and a fry.

For those of you who don’t know what a ‘fry’ is - it’s egg, bacon, sausage, potato bread and soda bread. And maybe a pancake, beans, mushrooms or grilled tomato if your extra hungry.

I like my fry, but a big fresh cream bun also sounds a good option.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That’s were I was coming from - in that the issue is not clear cut. To me, describing the act of two people who have deep affection for each other and an intention to commit engaging in sexual activity as ‘evil’ is over the top.

Assuming the couple is Catholic, then I would say the issue is undeniably clear cut. Deliberately disregarding and disobeying the commands of God as revealed through Scripture and the Magisterium is unquestionably evil. As evil is any thing that goes against God’s will, and both the Bible and the Church explicitly forbid fornication, I don’t see where you’ve got a foot to stand on. To be Catholic and ignore that is to be defiant; to rebel against God; in short, to sin.

As St. Augustine famously said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

 

[Corki]

Firstly, I didn’t say it causes scandal…the Church says it causes scandal. I merely quoted the relevant section dealing with fornication…

Secondly, your solution of simply lying is a poor one. But debates about lying to your own children about such important matters is a whole other tangent and belongs in its own thread…if indeed you think it’s a good thing to be done.

Thirdly, as I stated, scandal is not the primary reason that fornication is a sin. Even if you “deal” with the issue of scandal, the other reasons for fornication being a sin remain. So let’s not obfuscate the issue any further with the distraction of scandal.

It’ not causing scandal. The sin is giving scandal. This happens when someone in a position to influence others (such as a parent) acts in a sinful manner but gives the impression that it it right. The behavior could lead another (the children, for example) to commit the same sin.

 

[minkymurph]

Assuming the couple is Catholic, then I would say the issue is undeniably clear cut. Deliberately disregarding and disobeying the commands of God as revealed through Scripture and the Magisterium is unquestionably evil. As evil is any thing that goes against God’s will, and both the Bible and the Church explicitly forbid fornication, I don’t see where you’ve got a foot to stand on. To be Catholic and ignore that is to be defiant; to rebel against God; in short, to sin.

As St. Augustine famously said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

I take it it’s in regard to the statement, ‘describing the act of two people who a deep affection for each other and an intention to commit engaging in sexual activity as over the top’ you are referring to when you state, 'I don’t have a leg to stand on? I suppose it’s fair that warrants an explanation.

In the first instance, I would like to pose a question. You have stated ‘assuming the couple are Catholic.’ Can the act in question be fairly be labeled ‘evil’ if the couple are not Catholic?

‘Evil’ is a very strong term and just because someone engages in a certain act, this does not in itself constitute they are deliberately and defiantly rebelling against God and the Magisterium. I would like to illustrate this with two scenarios that actually happened. Most people would agree murder and theft can justifiably be labeled ‘evil.’ A priest in Nazi Germany was involved with a group that opposed the Third Reich. Eventually, a plot to kill Hitler was proposed. His writings reveal he wrestled with his conscience in that as a priest, could he become involved in murder plot? The counter-argument was by killing Hitler hundreds of innocent lives could have been saved. He became involved in the plot. Should his action be labeled ‘evil?’

A farmer in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge stole corn from a field because his family was starving. The field had been confiscated from him and other farmers to feed troops. Should his act be labeled ‘evil?’

Further to this line of reasoning, if you murder someone who has broken into your home with the intention to kill or cause serious harm to your family, can the act be labeled ‘evil?’ If you steal an item from someone for the purpose of returning it to the rightful owner due to the fact it was stolen from them, in the eyes of the law you have still committed theft. Should the act be labeled ‘evil?’

Of course it can be said, ‘what does this have to do fornication?’ It’s unlikely you would save an innocent victim by engaging in sexual activity. (Or would you?) What I am attempting to illustrate is the arbitrary nature of certain views concerning sexual sin. In the above scenarios, many would not label the act ‘evil.’ They may not label it ‘good,’ but they wouldn’t necessarily label it ‘evil.’

I would like to make it clear I am not delving into the realms of moral relativism here. What I am attempting to illustrate is there exists an arbitrary view of sexual sins in relation to others. There was a time in Ireland having a child out of wedlock was viewed a almost worse than murder. The title of this post is ‘why simple fornication can’t be mortal sin.’ Fornication can be a mortal sin. That is not under dispute. Whether it is one in every circumstance and under every eventuality is another matter. It’s at least possible it may be venial. We can label acts ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in black and white terms irrespective of the situation or circumstance, and there are people who would be of the opinion we should. In which case, they would be compelled to label murder and theft in the circumstances I described above as ‘evil,’ and perhaps that would be acceptable to them. However, a lot of people would not label the act of murder and theft as described in the circumstances above as ‘evil.’ In which case, we are not free to label fornication ‘evil’ in every circumstance and under every eventuality because it would be arbitrary, and justice is non-arbitrary.

 

[someperson555]

That’s were I was coming from - in that the issue is not clear cut. To me, describing the act of two people who have deep affection for each other and an intention to commit engaging in sexual activity as ‘evil’ is over the top.

exactly, dont get me wrong, im not saying that people should be arrogant and overconfident and therefore not confess an instance of fornication. that is absolutely not what im saying. its better to be safe than sorry after all. but what i am saying is for example, two young people who are deeply affectionate for eachother (possibly in love), and if they just cant wait until marriage, (because they dont want to rush into anything), if they would have sex, i dont think it would be a mortal sin if they would have the inention to confess it. i mean do you seriously think that God would send this couple to hell just for a few minutes of physical passion? which occured in an already stable relationship? call me crazy, call me a “heretic” but i dont think that God is so legalistic and bureaucratic that he would send this couple into everlasting torments for simply being a little impatient.

Where I have difficulty with your line of reasoning is your statement, ‘fornication isn’t as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to marry, and it’s between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner.’ It suggests that in order to establish whether or not you want to marry them you need to have sex. I’m not saying this is what you mean. This is how, rightly or wrongly, I am interpreting your statement.

you are correctly interpreting my comment, and actually i will concede to you here. you are right, people do not necessarily need to have sex in order to fall in love

I have heard it said that in order to know whether someone is right for you, you need to know if you are physically compatible which to me, is a very flawed line of reasoning. Engaging in sexual activity for the purpose of ‘trying someone out,’ for want of a better phrase, in order to establish if they are that ‘special person’ does degrade the act.

this is tricky, i wouldnt say it “degrades” the act, since there are other reasons to have sex than merely “trying him/her out”. imagine if you wait untill marriage and then afterwards your partner turns out to be sexually unsatisfying, or frigid, or has deformities, etc.

Anyone who has been married for any length of time will tell you there are many times when you are not sexually compatible. There are many times in a marriage couples are not deeply connected and happy to keep each other at arms length.

Personally speaking, if part of the criterion was physical compatibility, I think the majority of women would stay single.

Sorry guys, I know that’s an incredibly prejudiced statement. Not being serious. Just having a little joke to lighten the mood.

well just for the record not every woman out there is a beauty queen!

 

[someperson555]

I take it it’s in regard to the statement, ‘describing the act of two people who a deep affection for each other and an intention to commit engaging in sexual activity as over the top’ you are referring to when you state, 'I don’t have a leg to stand on? I suppose it’s fair that warrants an explanation.

In the first instance, I would like to pose a question. You have stated ‘assuming the couple are Catholic.’ Can the act in question be fairly be labeled ‘evil’ if the couple are not Catholic?

‘Evil’ is a very strong term and just because someone engages in a certain act, this does not in itself constitute they are deliberately and defiantly rebelling against God and the Magisterium. I would like to illustrate this with two scenarios that actually happened. Most people would agree murder and theft can justifiably be labeled ‘evil.’ A priest in Nazi Germany was involved with a group that opposed the Third Reich. Eventually, a plot to kill Hitler was proposed. His writings reveal he wrestled with his conscience in that as a priest, could he become involved in murder plot? The counter-argument was by killing Hitler hundreds of innocent lives could have been saved. He became involved in the plot. Should his action be labeled ‘evil?’

A farmer in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge stole corn from a field because his family was starving. The field had been confiscated from him and other farmers to feed troops. Should his act be labeled ‘evil?’

this is so true, ive always had a big problem with the catholic definition of “evil”. to me evil is willfully harming another person, or being so selfsih that you are willing to use another person for your own gain. to me war is evil, to me selling drugs is evil, to me hatred is evil.
but simple forniation? COME ON, you could say its “immoral” but i seriously wouldnt put a simple addiction to sense pleasures on par with murder or usury or profiteering. what i find very disturbing is that many catholics dont see a problem with people being flung into hell for simply wanting to satisfy their sex pleasures. im sorry but sex is NOT the worst thing in the world. you know it really makes me righteously indignant when i pose an honest question about sex and i get attacked as “an evil heretic” or “someone who is just trying to jsutify his lust”, while i see PLENTY of posters here on CAF who constantly try to justify their feelings of revenge and anger and greed. not to mention they distort my arguments so much that they make assumptions about me which are completely untrue.
oh and not to mention they never present any valid counter argument, all they do is quote from the catechism, and they think that constitutes a valid “argument”. in essence they are just saying “its wrong because the churchs said so”. but they dont have any real philosophical or logical arguments. they just appeal to authority.

 

[prodigalson2011]

this is so true, ive always had a big problem with the catholic definition of “evil”. to me evil is willfully harming another person, or being so selfsih that you are willing to use another person for your own gain. to me war is evil, to me selling drugs is evil, to me hatred is evil.
but simple forniation? COME ON, you could say its “immoral” but i seriously wouldnt put a simple addiction to sense pleasures on par with murder or usury or profiteering. what i find very disturbing is that many catholics dont see a problem with people being flung into hell for simply wanting to satisfy their sex pleasures. im sorry but sex is NOT the worst thing in the world. you know it really makes me righteously indignant when i pose an honest question about sex and i get attacked as “an evil heretic” or “someone who is just trying to jsutify his lust”, while i see PLENTY of posters here on CAF who constantly try to justify their feelings of revenge and anger and greed. not to mention they distort my arguments so much that they make assumptions about me which are completely untrue.
oh and not to mention they never present any valid counter argument, all they do is quote from the catechism, and they think that constitutes a valid “argument”. in essence they are just saying “its wrong because the churchs said so”. but they dont have any real philosophical or logical arguments. they just appeal to authority.

Now you’re just in denial. I and several others have offered you plenty of logical arguments.

Fire is not the worst thing in the world, either, but if you set it to a house, it certainly becomes so. Likewise, sex is not the worst thing in the world. In fact, in its proper context, it is one of the most beautiful things in the world. But, to quote a comic book of all things, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Satisfying your sexual urges without regard or respect to the possible long-term consequences is evil.

I don’t know why I’m even bothering to reply again. I’ll pray you see the truth for what it is.

I want to ask you one question. Please answer this for me: **If, as you say you do, you believe in Jesus, and you believe he is the Son of God, why do you reject His very own words? **

That is ultimately the question that needs to be answered and you have been avoiding it this whole time. What we mere humans have to say, logical as it may be, is ultimately unimportant compared to the words of Jesus Christ himself.

 

[minkymurph]

i mean do you seriously think that God would send this couple to hell just for a few minutes of physical passion? which occured in an already stable relationship? call me crazy, call me a “heretic” but i dont think that God is so legalistic and bureaucratic that he would send this couple into everlasting torments for simply being a little impatient.

Depends on the person. If a person is a legalistic, bureaucratic, authoritarian person, their image of God will be similar. If they are not, their image of God will not be on that is legalistic, bureaucratic, or authoritarian. I’ve come to the conclusion that people are harder to please than God is.

this is tricky, i wouldnt say it “degrades” the act, since there are other reasons to have sex than merely “trying him/her out”. imagine if you wait untill marriage and then afterwards your partner turns out to be sexually unsatisfying, or frigid, or has deformities, etc.

The reason I use the term ‘degrades,’ is because the notion of finding out if you are sexually compatible sets a condition that is unfair and unrealistic. I should have been more explicit and used the term sexually compatible as opposed to physically compatible.
In a long term relationship, you will - not ‘might,’ ‘will,’ find your partner sexually unsatisfying or frigid. It happens in relationships. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect it to be otherwise, and as such unfair and unrealistic to conclude they are not the one for you as a consequence. Sexual compatibility, if such a thing exists, comes from how the couple feel about each other.

As far as being frigid or having a deformity goes, the possibility of someone being frigid is something you would probably catch on to without going through the process of having sex. It’s also something a couple who have genuine feelings for each other would discuss. If you only find out on your wedding night there is a problem, I would say you didn’t have much of a relationship in the first place. The same could be said for a deformity.

In addition, I would assume you are talking about a genital deformity and not something like webbed feet? It would need to be some deformity to put you off marrying someone you care about. It also sounds a bit fickle - if you haven’t got nice ‘bits’ you may not be the one for me? There comes a point in relationship were fireworks in bed aren’t a priority because other things become more important. These things hold you together when the physical side of things inevitably aren’t so good, and enable you to rebuilt the intimacy that has become lost. There is also something very special about giving yourself physically to one person and one person only for life. Incidentally, albatrosses do that which many think is very touching.

well just for the record not every woman out there is a beauty queen!

Touche. But I wasn’t actually talking about physical beauty, but rather how fulfilling sexual intimacy is.

 

[minkymurph]

you know it really makes me righteously indignant when i pose an honest question about sex and i get attacked as “an evil heretic” or “someone who is just trying to jsutify his lust”, while i see PLENTY of posters here on CAF who constantly try to justify their feelings of revenge and anger and greed. not to mention they distort my arguments so much that they make assumptions about me which are completely untrue.

That’s freedom of expression for you.

Just remember the internet is a virtual world. A lot of people say things on the internet due to the fact it gives them anonymity. Consequently, people can get away with saying things on the internet they know they would not get away with saying face-to-face. In addition, they don’t know you or the first thing about you. I have often stated in posts that if people want to disagree with me fine. They are entitled to their opinion and I’m not an authority on everything. There is no reason to make statements such as; your not this or that, or you think this or that and so on, other than to vent one’s anger. It’s fair enough to say you think someone is wrong, but it can be said in terms of, 'I disagree with your statement/comment, what you have said is flawed/inaccurate without having to resort to assumptions about the person posting.

oh and not to mention they never present any valid counter argument, all they do is quote from the catechism, and they think that constitutes a valid “argument”. in essence they are just saying “its wrong because the churchs said so”. but they dont have any real philosophical or logical arguments. they just appeal to authority.

In my view anyone who simply quotes the catechism or says, ‘it’s wrong because the church says it is’ may perhaps lack the capacity to articulate a philosophical or logical argument. Personally I think it’s important to be able to articulate why we believe what we do, and not just state what it is. Anyone could copy pages out of the catechism or state what the church teaches. Not everyone can explain why the catechism says what it does, or why the church teaches what it does, and that’s the challenge today. Rightly or wrongly, people are not going to accept things on the basis of ‘church say so,’ and if we want to pass our faith onto others, we have to meet that challenge.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In my view anyone who simply quotes the catechism or says, ‘it’s wrong because the church says it is’ may perhaps lack the capacity to articulate a philosophical or logical argument. Personally I think it’s important to be able to articulate why we believe what we do, and not just state what it is. Anyone could copy pages out of the catechism or state what the church teaches. Not everyone can explain why the catechism says what it does, or why the church teaches what it does, and that’s the challenge today. Rightly or wrongly, people are not going to accept things on the basis of ‘church say so,’ and if we want to pass our faith onto others, we have to meet that challenge.

Nobody here has done that.

 

[minkymurph]

Nobody here has done that.

Nobody here has done what? Quoted the catechism, or met the challenge of explaining things to people.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nobody here has done what? Quoted the catechism, or met the challenge of explaining things to people.

Way to try and frame/load the question. People may have quoted the catechism, but they have also offered sound logic to back it up. So, in short, they have done both of those things. But I have yet to see anyone here rely exclusively on the Catechism for an answer.

It is becoming more and more obvious that you and someperson are not even interested in honest conversation. If all you’re going to do is ignore the points everyone else is making and throw out deceptive diversions like this, there’s really no point in having a discourse at all.

Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate with the rest of us, it seems you two are more interested in affirming what you already think and mocking everyone else.

 

[minkymurph]

Way to try and frame/load the question. People may have quoted the catechism, but they have also offered sound logic to back it up. So, in short, they have done both of those things. But I have yet to see anyone here rely exclusively on the Catechism for an answer.

What I was trying to do, based on the assumption I was trying to do anything, was a degree of humor to the discussion, (hence the smiley face) perhaps badly as it obviously offended you. I did not state, in any of my posts, anyone here had quoted the catechism and failed to offer sound logic to back it up. It cannot be said no one on the forums does this. That is why I responded as I did. What I said was generalization, non-specific, and in response made to another poster.

It is becoming more and more obvious that you and someperson are not even interested in honest conversation. If all you’re going to do is ignore the points everyone else is making and throw out deceptive diversions like this, there’s really no point in having a discourse at all.

If you choose to jump to conclusions about myself, or anyone else on this thread, or conclude there is having point in engaging in discourse, that is you’re prerogative. However, if someone voices an opinion that does not concur with yours, it is not an indication they are deceptive, not interested in an honest conversation, ignoring the points you or anyone else is making, or mocking you.

Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate with the rest of us, it seems you two are more interested in affirming what you already think and mocking everyone else.

That allegation is based on nothing more than an assumption. Responding to another another post that appears to concur with an opinion expressed in it is not an indication the posters concerned are in league with each other. It would be irrational to conclude they are. I can’t speak for anyone else, and would not attempt to, but I was of the opinion I was attempting to engage in thoughtful debate with others. If anyone wants to assume otherwise, they are free to do so. But I think it’s fair to say throwing out allegations based on nothing more than their own personal assumptions in relation to a posters intentions can’t exactly be categorized as engaging in thoughtful debate and offering sound logic.