Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[mini_me640]

The Jewish tradition asserts you are free to have all the sex you want. You can live together, have sex outside of marriage, as long as you both agree. You cannot, however, cheat on a spouse or someone you are living with (in a committed relationship). That is adultery. That’s the religion of Jesus…but, hey, what do they know?

This is not the belief of the many Orthodox Jews I know nor is it Biblical or consistent with what Jesus (an Orthodox Jew) taught…

 

[minkymurph]

I honestly have never seen any valid detailed explanation of sex outside of marriage being a sin other than the church saying it. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. I was married to a Jewish man and they told us flat out. No sin if you have sex, only if you commit adultery.

That’s interesting. Can you expand on that?

The reason I ask is due to disputes concerning the translation and meaning of fornication and adultery. The other reason is I have discovered there are many things people say the Jews thought and believed, and they actually didn’t and don’t.

You said in another post you said you were married to a Jewish man. Someone else responded what you were told is not what Orthodox Jews think. I have been informed there are different opinions within Judaism. If you don’t mind me asking, to which particular branch of Judaism did he belong, and do you know if the different branches within Judaism have different views concerning fornication and adultery?

 

[minkymurph]

That possibility is one that carries immense responsibility and must be accounted for by those engaging in the act. If a child is produced, it deserves to have a stable family, and the parents should be prepared to provide that. Marriage is the proper covenant that God has established for that purpose. If you are prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to have children. If you are prepared to have children, you should be prepared to stay with your partner. If you are prepared to stay with your partner, you should be married. Period.

What if the two people engaging in the sex are prepared to accept children as a result of having sex, give them a stable home and stay together? In the past, ‘common law’ marriage was exactly that - common. Many people lived together and raised, but were viewed as married in spite of not being officially married. It wasn’t considered scandalous.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason Catholics marry in church is not because it’s a legal requirement or simply the respectable thing to do, but because they believe marriage is a sacrament. If two people are not Catholic and do not believe marriage is a sacrament, does it make any difference if they don’t marry? Is it fair to say it only matters in relation to a sacramental marriage?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

If an unmarried Jewish woman was having sex in Jesus’ time, she risked being stoned to death, so I would highly doubt sex before marriage is an Orthodox Jewish belief.

“Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness” Galatians 5:20

“But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints.” Ephesians 5:1

"Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly:fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). Colossians 3:5

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to control you own body in holiness and honor, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.” 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

“Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” Hebrews 13:4

 

[minkymurph]

If an unmarried Jewish woman was having sex in Jesus’ time, she risked being stoned to death, so I would highly doubt sex before marriage is an Orthodox Jewish belief.

She risked being stoned for adultery. Could she also have been stoned for fornication?

Is there a difference between fornication and adultery?

 

[Corki]

Is it fair to say the line of distinction between a venial and mortal sin can be hard to define? In which case one could argue that in order to sure, it is one’s best interests not to commit either.

Absolutely! But there are clearly some things where the act is objectively grave. If consent and knowledge are also present, there will be serious sin.

In relation to fornication being close to adultery, I’m not sure. There are disagreements concerning the definition of adultery. Some say is the act of sexual intercourse outside marriage - full stop - and some say adultery relates only to married couples?

The specific sin of adultery involves at least one of the participants being married.

Other sexual sins outside of marriage are considered by the Church to fall under the 6th Commandment even if they are not specifically the sin of adultery. (CCC 2331 ff)

I would see a difference between cheating on your husband or wife, and a couple who have the intention to marry engaging engaging in sexual activity prior to the event, as the latter distorts carnal love to a greater extent.

Of course they are different, but I would say they one is not always more grave. For example, a couple who is “mad for each other” and has sex with each other over a period of time rather than getting married may be objectively doing something “more” sinful than a person who has a one-night affair after a few too many martinis and is sorrowful about his/her actions. In the latter case, flouting the moral teaching of the Church - on purpose - makes it worse.

Conversely an engaged couple who is trying to wait for marriage but once or twice gets “carried away” is not as “bad” as a man carrying on a long-time affair with his secretary.

 

[minkymurph]

Absolutely! But there are clearly some things where the act is objectively grave. If consent and knowledge are also present, there will be serious sin.

The specific sin of adultery involves at least one of the participants being married.

Other sexual sins outside of marriage are considered by the Church to fall under the 6th Commandment even if they are not specifically the sin of adultery. (CCC 2331 ff)

Of course they are different, but I would say they one is not always more grave. For example, a couple who is “mad for each other” and has sex with each other over a period of time rather than getting married may be objectively doing something “more” sinful than a person who has a one-night affair after a few too many martinis and is sorrowful about his/her actions. In the latter case, flouting the moral teaching of the Church - on purpose - makes it worse.

Conversely an engaged couple who is trying to wait for marriage but once or twice gets “carried away” is not as “bad” as a man carrying on a long-time affair with his secretary.

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP’s inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the ‘perfect’ way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of ‘it’s wrong.’ I say that because if something is ‘wrong,’ it’s not simply a case of ‘it’s just wrong’ but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category. However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

 

[thewanderer]

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP’s inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the ‘perfect’ way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of ‘it’s wrong.’ I say that because if something is ‘wrong,’ it’s not simply a case of ‘it’s just wrong’ but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category. However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

The problem is that the way we are built a loving, intimate relationship as you describe is meant to be permanent. Why are people so torn up over break-ups? because they have been building the kind of relationship that is supposed to be permanant, a relationships without any ‘ifs’. Of course, not every marriage succeeds, married people still break up all the time, but the point is that if you two truly love each other the correct way you would want to make it a permanant commitment, ie, get married, before having relations. Sure, its possible for people to be truly comitted to each other without actually being married, such as some engaged couples, but if they are planning on getting married presumably they recognize the importance of actually making an official commitment to each other in this way. To be quite honest, I really don’t understand the line of thinking that says, “well, we love each other, so why wait for marriage?”. I want a comitment from the person I am with, I want a mutual, permanent comitment before I am willing to become so vulnerable as to give myself entirely to them. I don’t understand why in the world people would be willing to open themselves up so completely to another without this kind of commitment.

 

[Corki]

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP’s inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

No, I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion. If both are gravely sinful then the same conditions apply (knowledge and consent). Fornication for a sane person with even basic catechesis is always going to be a mortal sin. Adultery is always going to be a mortal sin. The subjective elements might mitigate culpability but that’s something to be discussed with his confessor. You can’t pre-plan diminshed culpability.

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the ‘perfect’ way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of ‘it’s wrong.’ I say that because if something is ‘wrong,’ it’s not simply a case of ‘it’s just wrong’ but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Well both activities fall short and both evidence a failure to love as God loves. Fornication is wrong because it is not only a misguided expression of carnal love but because it cheapens the sexual expression within the bounds of marriage and also distorts the Sacrament. The only thing different is the lack of betrayal.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category.

My comment had nothing to do with inclination to care for the child. Purposefully denying the child the right to be born into a married family is seriously gravely sinful.

However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

Unless the person has diminished capacity or is forced, it will be.

 

[bbentrup]

To the OP: What was the original sin? Adam and Eve’s disobedience (possibly motivated by the sin of pride). All they did was eat the apple, and yet the consequences were devastating.

You have heard from the commandments, from Jesus, from the Magisterium that fornication is evil. Even if the proscription had no basis in logic whatsoever, it would be your duty to obey your Creator. The servant is not greater than the master - you cannot say you can understand fully God’s reason for his ban, so obey the ban and trust in him, who is all-loving. Converting to this mindset, try to figure out if there is good reason for the ban (hint: lots of good reasons listed in this thread). Even if you find none, still obey in humility. Wisdom often starts with obedience to Mother Church!

 

[prodigalson2011]

The larger the caps, the louder your voice, the bright color and caps say to me you are threatened, insecure, and freaking out. This is a discussion. You will not die if you do not convince someone of your point. Relax, OK?

No, I will die regardless. I appreciate your psychoanalysis, but I’m afraid it’s a little off the mark. I was not “freaking out”, I’m really a notoriously, some might even say freakishly, calm person. I was only trying to catch the OP’s attention, as I felt that the conversation was devolving into so much legalistic theology that was not benefitting the OP at all and ignoring the simple common sense that underlies this whole issue. I felt I had a perspective that might better cut through the cloud if his misconception which he should hear. A feeling which I think was affirmed by the fact that the OP, for the first time I’ve seen in this thread, conceded my point. The big, bright letters were just a means to the end of catching his attention, not a nervous breakdown.

 

[minkymurph]

The problem is that the way we are built a loving, intimate relationship as you describe is meant to be permanent. Why are people so torn up over break-ups? because they have been building the kind of relationship that is supposed to be permanant, a relationships without any ‘ifs’. Of course, not every marriage succeeds, married people still break up all the time, but the point is that if you two truly love each other the correct way you would want to make it a permanant commitment, ie, get married, before having relations. Sure, its possible for people to be truly comitted to each other without actually being married, such as some engaged couples, but if they are planning on getting married presumably they recognize the importance of actually making an official commitment to each other in this way. To be quite honest, I really don’t understand the line of thinking that says, “well, we love each other, so why wait for marriage?”. I want a comitment from the person I am with, I want a mutual, permanent comitment before I am willing to become so vulnerable as to give myself entirely to them. I don’t understand why in the world people would be willing to open themselves up so completely to another without this kind of commitment.

It’s true they are building a relationship, and any relationship requires commitment.

I struggle to understand why some people live together for years, buy a home together, have children, yet don’t get married. One thing bamboozles me is people who do all this, in addition to going on foreign holidays every year, yet claim they can’t afford to get married. :hypno:

There are people who simply just don’t think it’s necessary because of their view of what marriage means, and the fact they are not religious, in that they don’t think it’s necessary for either the State or a Church to sanction their relationship. In addition, many people who live together are legally entitled to the same benefits as married couples. They more or less are viewed a married by the State, and they see marriage as little more than a piece of paper.

 

[minkymurph]

No, I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion. If both are gravely sinful then the same conditions apply (knowledge and consent). Fornication for a sane person with even basic catechesis is always going to be a mortal sin. Adultery is always going to be a mortal sin. The subjective elements might mitigate culpability but that’s something to be discussed with his confessor. You can’t pre-plan diminshed culpability.

No, but if a lesser degree of culpability exists, is it possible a venial rather than a mortal sin has been committed?

Well both activities fall short and both evidence a failure to love as God loves. Fornication is wrong because it is not only a misguided expression of carnal love but because it cheapens the sexual expression within the bounds of marriage and also distorts the Sacrament. The only thing different is the lack of betrayal.

I can see where your coming from in relation to sacramentality. What if a person is not Catholic and doesn’t believe marriage is a sacrament? Are they less culpable?

My comment had nothing to do with inclination to care for the child. Purposefully denying the child the right to be born into a married family is seriously gravely sinful.

No it didn’t, and I take your point about purposefully denying a child the right to be born within marriage. What I was getting at is I would see a difference between a couple who are prepared to commit to raising a child together if that happens, and a couple who are not.

Unless the person has diminished capacity or is forced, it will be.

That may take us into a discussion on what may constitute diminished responsibility. But may we shouldn’t go there.

 

[Corki]

No, but if a lesser degree of culpability exists, is it possible a venial rather than a mortal sin has been committed?

No, diminished culpability doesn’t turn a mortal sin into a venial one. The three conditions are what matter. The extra circumstances are more about the resulting spiritual effect.

I can see where your coming from in relation to sacramentality. What if a person is not Catholic and doesn’t believe marriage is a sacrament? Are they less culpable?

Maybe. But it’s not so much whether they believe in the Sacrament. But a person who does not have a faith tradition about marriage may know have the knowledge criterial for mortal sin fulfilled. In THAT case, it would be venial because one of the three conditions would be missing.

No it didn’t, and I take your point about purposefully denying a child the right to be born within marriage. What I was getting at is I would see a difference between a couple who are prepared to commit to raising a child together if that happens, and a couple who are not.

Yes, however, I would say that someone who shirks his/her committment is committing another sin and it doesn’t matter if that committment was initiated through fornication or marriage.

That may take us into a discussion on what may constitute diminished responsibility. But may we shouldn’t go there.

Good idea!

 

[AdamP88]

No, I will die regardless. I appreciate your psychoanalysis, but I’m afraid it’s a little off the mark. I was not “freaking out”, I’m really a notoriously, some might even say freakishly, calm person. I was only trying to catch the OP’s attention, as I felt that the conversation was devolving into so much legalistic theology that was not benefitting the OP at all and ignoring the simple common sense that underlies this whole issue. I felt I had a perspective that might better cut through the cloud if his misconception which he should hear. A feeling which I think was affirmed by the fact that the OP, for the first time I’ve seen in this thread, conceded my point. The big, bright letters were just a means to the end of catching his attention, not a nervous breakdown.

 

[someperson555]

I honestly have never seen any valid detailed explanation of sex outside of marriage being a sin other than the church saying it. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. I was married to a Jewish man and they told us flat out. No sin if you have sex, only if you commit adultery.

i agree.

 

[someperson555]

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP’s inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the ‘perfect’ way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of ‘it’s wrong.’ I say that because if something is ‘wrong,’ it’s not simply a case of ‘it’s just wrong’ but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category. However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

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.

 

[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.
(Snip)

See, and this is where you completely lose me. It is just two people expressing **physical **intimacy. To be perfectly honest, I find such a diminishing understanding of sex to be really sad. So many people today seem to think of sex as being ‘just sex’, or ‘a release’, or simply some ‘physical pleasure’. I’m going to be quite frank here, it is not the Church that looks down on sex, it is you. Sex, as it is supposed to be, is much, much more than “just sex” or just some sort of physical intimacy. The reason you fail to see why the Church teaches what it does is because you do not value sex as it ought to be valued, you simply do not see how beautiful it really is supposed to be.

 

[someperson555]

I believe that you are sincere in your questions. That being said, I would invite you to look at the “fruits” of “simple fornication in a relationship with good friends”. Let’s look at them: abortion, (even partial-birth abortions!), wounded souls from destructive casual sexual encounters, STDs (herpes, clamydia, HIV increasing exponentially) artificial birth control, rampant homosexuality ("same-sex marriages??), divorce, destroyed families–especially the children, unwed mothers, teenagers having babies, and the list goes on. How could anyone consider this to be healthy? God meant for sex to be pleasurable, but this is reserved only for married couples. This is a privilege. Despite the claims of the intelligensia we are not 98% chimpanzees! There is a whole other 2% unaccounted for–at least scientifically. But, in genetics that is a monumental difference.

If you are a "catholic through and through, you would be better served engaging in a good, solid Catholic moral theology or Catholic theology class. Ask a good priest to recommend one to you. There are some excellent books written by very CATHOLIC authors who have written many books on moral theology. Try also reading some of the papal encyclicals on human life (Humanae Vita), and others.

while i cant argue with that, since i dont support the “sexual revolution”.
however sexual repression has also had disasterous effects. just look at the middle east countries, women cant even show their ankles without being called whores, it was the same in america 200 years ago. and in the early times of the church some men who were having nocturnal emissions were denied communion. can you justify that in any way? its exactly this neurotic attitude towards sex that caused much suffering in the past. therefore we cant blame the sexual revolution, because honestly, what did you expect? i agree that its not really much better now since people basically revert back to the stage of the animal by being driven by their passions.
we are not animals, but we are not angels either! we have a physical body and physical desires.

 

[someperson555]

See, and this is where you completely lose me. It is just two people expressing **physical **intimacy. To be perfectly honest, I find such a diminishing understanding of sex to be really sad. So many people today seem to think of sex as being ‘just sex’, or ‘a release’, or simply some ‘physical pleasure’. I’m going to be quite frank here, it is not the Church that looks down on sex, it is you. Sex, as it is supposed to be, is much, much more than “just sex” or just some sort of physical intimacy. The reason you fail to see why the Church teaches what it does is because you do not value sex as it ought to be valued, you simply do not see how beautiful it really is supposed to be.

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.