Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[Irishgal49]

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.

I think you can make a point without the huge capital letters. It makes people look crazy and desperate when they start screaming in their posts. Just state what you believe, your rationale and why.

I personally have no problem with sex between two committed people. If I was engaged and we were getting married I have no problem with sex in that situation. I don’t like societies casual attitude and the way that people have used sex as a weapon and bribery and everything else. But if two people are committed to each other then so what. Since a good deal of marriages end up divorced I don’t see the point in having to wait until I’m married if we’re engaged.

I guess those who have 2-3 anullments will sit on here and rail about the value of chastity and that’s fine. I don’t pretend to be something I’m not. If I want to have sex with someone I care about, I will. I have an ex-boyfriend that is coming to town next weekend. I’d just come back to the Church a year ago and we had seen each other for “fun” every other Monday for 3 years. I asked him to put us on hold so I could sort out what I needed to do. He wanted to resume the “casual sex” appts and he’s in a committed relationship. I don’t think that’s being very responsible to cheat on someone else. I told him no. I really really want to be with him but that’s not a committed relationship, that’s not kind to his girlfriend.

I think most people who believe in God and try to live as Christians do tend to weigh out things and just because they don’t always fall into an Orthodox Catholic stance doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to live God’s way. They just don’t always live your interpretation of God’s way. Whether someone likes it or not they have to accept that.

I am working with a Confessor and am a sexual abuse survivor so I guess my take on things is tainted by my experiences, and I can acknowledge that. I have masturbation compulsion issues and he flat out told me God doesn’t send wounded people who act out their brokenness to hell. That stands in stark contrast to what most people say on here. Remember everyone else, except all those on here who are perfect, are broken and many are panicky because they see they can’t measure up. And maybe for them making sure they are at least caring about and committed to the person they have sex with is the best they can do. I don’t feel I am giving advice but just saying that some people don’t agree with the Bible, some people don’t agree with the Church, but they are still coming and I say that’s between them and their Confessor. If they want to state their opinion I will listen. It can only make me a better person. I am not threatened by people who say something different, I just grow weary of the “perfect people” who never talk of their struggle, how they got so perfect, and how they have no love for those who are not “there yet”…none.

Very Sad,

Lorrie

 

[minkymurph]

And maybe for them making sure they are at least caring about and committed to the person they have sex with is the best they can do.

This is one of the reasons I asserted that there are circumstances in which ‘sin’ could be more properly described (perhaps badly) as ‘loving less perfectly’ rather than ‘evil.’ If a person is doing the best they can in their circumstances, it is disproportionate to categorize their actions which fall short of ‘perfect’ as ‘evil.’

To expand on the illustrations I used in other posts -

Most people here would agree lying is a sin. There are times when lying is downright evil such as; slandering someone, malicious gossip etc. Can it always properly be described as ‘evil?’ A colleague of mine had a parakeet, as did another colleague’s mother. He adored his mother and when she died, he asked my other colleague to take it as a companion for hers. A few days later it died. He kept asking who his mother’s bird was, and she hadn’t the heart to tell him the truth, so she lied and said it was perfectly happy and flapping about. He also asked me from time to time how the bird was doing, as I was good friends with this colleague and on occasion in her house. My friend asked me not to tell him the truth, and I lied to him as well.

Rightly or wrongly, I think the former would have hurt more, as by the time he found out the truth he’d had time to heal, but it is indisputable we lied.

Three questions -

1. Which would have caused more harm or hurt? Telling him the truth at the outset, or him finding out we had been lying to him because we didn’t want to hurt his feelings?
2. Did we sin?
3. Can our actions be categorized as ‘evil?’

 

[davidv]

This is one of the reasons I asserted that there are circumstances in which ‘sin’ could be more properly described (perhaps badly) as ‘loving less perfectly’ rather than ‘evil.’ If a person is doing the best they can in their circumstances, it is disproportionate to categorize their actions which fall short of ‘perfect’ as ‘evil.’

To expand on the illustrations I used in other posts -

Most people here would agree lying is a sin. There are times when lying is downright evil such as; slandering someone, malicious gossip etc. Can it always properly be described as ‘evil?’ A colleague of mine had a parakeet, as did another colleague’s mother. He adored his mother and when she died, he asked my other colleague to take it as a companion for hers. A few days later it died. He kept asking who his mother’s bird was, and she hadn’t the heart to tell him the truth, so she lied and said it was perfectly happy and flapping about. He also asked me from time to time how the bird was doing, as I was good friends with this colleague and on occasion in her house. My friend asked me not to tell him the truth, and I lied to him as well.

Rightly or wrongly, I think the former would have hurt more, as by the time he found out the truth he’d had time to heal, but it is indisputable we lied.

Three questions -

1. Which would have caused more harm or hurt? Telling him the truth at the outset, or him finding out we had been lying to him because we didn’t want to hurt his feelings?
2. Did we sin?
3. Can our actions be categorized as ‘evil?’

Fornication always causes spiritual harm. Sometimes is cause emotional harm to one or both parties. If someone is hurt by learning the truth that person has a personal problem they have to deal with.

Lying (withholding the truth from someone who has rightful access to it) is a sin. By definition it is evil (the absense of good = sin).

 

[minkymurph]

Fornication always causes spiritual harm. Sometimes is cause emotional harm to one or both parties. If someone is hurt by learning the truth that person has a personal problem they have to deal with.

I agree fornication always causes spiritual harm, and is sometimes a cause of emotional harm to one or both parties. Your next statement I don’t agree with. The learning of truth may not be a problem so much as how it’s learned. If someone is hurt as a consequence of truth being imparted to them bluntly, devoid of compassion or cruelly when there is no necessity to do so, I wouldn’t say they had a personal problem to deal with. The person who imparts the truth might.

Lying (withholding the truth from someone who has rightful access to it) is a sin. By definition it is evil (the absense of good = sin).

So would your answer to the third question I posed, 'can our action properly be categorized as ‘evil’ be yes?

 

[davidv]

I agree fornication always causes spiritual harm, and is sometimes a cause of emotional harm to one or both parties. Your next statement I don’t agree with. The learning of truth may not be a problem so much as how it’s learned. If someone is hurt as a consequence of truth being imparted to them bluntly, devoid of compassion or cruelly when there is no necessity to do so, I wouldn’t say they had a personal problem to deal with. The person who imparts the truth might.

Where did I say or imply that the truth be delivered in the uncharitible ways you described?

So would your answer to the third question I posed, 'can our action properly be categorized as ‘evil’ be yes?

I cannot answer. I cannot tell if what you described is “lying”.

 

[Jacob_Morgan]

if we deny that sex is intrinsically evil, then we cannot say that it is always a mortal sin. just think about it, if we need a license to engage in sex (marriage) then that would mean that sex is intrinsically evil.

An undertaker is doing a work of mercy by burying the dead. So it can’t be all that bad to bury people when they are still alive.

A surgeon cutting open the chest of a sick person to cure them of disease is a wonderful thing. Therefore it can’t be a mortal sin to slice open someone’s chest with a switch blade if they owe you money.

It isn’t wrong for me to withdraw my money from the bank, so it is not a mortal sin for me to withdraw other peoples’ money from the bank.

I can get into my car and drive to work, so I can get into your car and drive to work. And therefore car theft isn’t a mortal sin.

What can’t be rationalized?

A priest can dispose of an accidently molded consecrated host by disolving it in water and returning it to the elements. So a Satanist can steal a consecreated host and desecrate it in a black mass and therefore that isn’t a mortal sin since they are both just destroying the same thing.

Scientists set off an under ground nuclear detonation in a cave years ago in an attempt to harness the nuclear blast to create electrical energy (The Gnome Project in SW New Mexico), and no one was hurt. Therefore since nuclear blasts are not intrinsically evil it is not a mortal sin to set off a nuclear detonation amongst a civilian population.

It isn’t just the physical action, it is to whom, with whom, when, under what conditions, etc. If you have an interest in thinking about moral questions in a logical manner, try reading St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

 

[Irishgal49]

Fornication always causes spiritual harm. Sometimes is cause emotional harm to one or both parties. If someone is hurt by learning the truth that person has a personal problem they have to deal with.

Lying (withholding the truth from someone who has rightful access to it) is a sin. By definition it is evil (the absence of good = sin).

It must be nice to have it all figured out so succinctly. Fornication does not always cause spiritual harm in my opinion but I haven’t got the whole world all figured out and insist that it’s the only way to see things. I’m weird that way I guess. BTW I corrected your spelling of the word absence

 

[Irishgal49]

An undertaker is doing a work of mercy by burying the dead. So it can’t be all that bad to bury people when they are still alive.

A surgeon cutting open the chest of a sick person to cure them of disease is a wonderful thing. Therefore it can’t be a mortal sin to slice open someone’s chest with a switch blade if they owe you money.

It isn’t wrong for me to withdraw my money from the bank, so it is not a mortal sin for me to withdraw other peoples’ money from the bank.

I can get into my car and drive to work, so I can get into your car and drive to work. And therefore car theft isn’t a mortal sin.

What can’t be rationalized?

A priest can dispose of an accidently molded consecrated host by disolving it in water and returning it to the elements. So a Satanist can steal a consecreated host and desecrate it in a black mass and therefore that isn’t a mortal sin since they are both just destroying the same thing.

Scientists set off an under ground nuclear detonation in a cave years ago in an attempt to harness the nuclear blast to create electrical energy (The Gnome Project in SW New Mexico), and no one was hurt. Therefore since nuclear blasts are not intrinsically evil it is not a mortal sin to set off a nuclear detonation amongst a civilian population.

It isn’t just the physical action, it is to whom, with whom, when, under what conditions, etc. If you have an interest in thinking about moral questions in a logical manner, try reading St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

I am an armchair theologian although I do have a theology degree and I think you just confirmed the exact point you were criticizing. Funny how that happens.

 

[Irishgal49]

You still haven’t answered my previous question: if you believe in Jesus, then why don’t you believe the promise He made to never lead His Church into error? A promise evidenced by the fact that the Church has yielded no ground to moral revisionists like yourself for nearly 2000 years?

The church HAS committed very serious and grave errors. TONS of them. You must not read history much. Jesus NEVER EVER said the Church would not fall into error. He said it would not succumb, that no matter what happened it would always exist and survive. The church has committed atrocious acts that were grave errors. JPII apologized for many of them. If he felt the need to say he was sorry on behalf of the Church, guess what? The Church fell into error. I am proud to be part of a Church that is able to admit that.

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

Sex is over rated??? No way. I have the polka theology view of sex. “In heaven there is no beer, that’s why we drink it here.” Same with sex. No sex in heaven so better enjoy it while you’re here.

 

[davidv]

It must be nice to have it all figured out so succinctly. Fornication does not always cause spiritual harm in my opinion but I haven’t got the whole world all figured out and insist that it’s the only way to see things. I’m weird that way I guess. BTW I corrected your spelling of the word absence

Why should I trust your opinion on this? My position is not my opinion. It is the Church constant teaching put in my words.

Why do you erroneously conclude that I have it all figured out? You have no clue what I have figured out and what I have not. Also, spelling correction isn’t a very reasonable response to the position described.

 

[davidv]

You still haven’t answered my previous question: if you believe in Jesus, then why don’t you believe the promise He made to never lead His Church into error? A promise evidenced by the fact that the Church has yielded no ground to moral revisionists like yourself for nearly 2000 years?

The church HAS committed very serious and grave errors. TONS of them. You must not read history much. Jesus NEVER EVER said the Church would not fall into error.

There is a very strong implication of Him saying so here:

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John (RSV) 16)

He said it would not succumb, that no matter what happened it would always exist and survive. The church has committed atrocious acts that were grave errors. JPII apologized for many of them. If he felt the need to say he was sorry on behalf of the Church, guess what? The Church fell into error. I am proud to be part of a Church that is able to admit that.

False claim. Why do you attritute the behaviors of those in the Church to the Church itself? They are not the same.

 

[twoangels]

ive been thinking about this for a long time now. i think i figured it out. if we deny that sex is intrinsically evil, then we cannot say that it is always a mortal sin. just think about it, if we need a license to engage in sex (marriage) then that would mean that sex is intrinsically evil.

Let’s test your logic

If A is not intrinsically evil,
then B cannot always be a mortal sin.
Because all mortal sins are intrinsically evil.

Suppose A is sex
And B is rape

You’ll see sex does not need to be intrinsically evil for a particular situation involving sex to be evil.

first we must ask, why is it that the church discourages fornication? the answer is simple, because it can easily lead to selfishness which can easily lead to pride which destroys charity.

Fornication is sinful because sex is a procreative act. God instituted marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman agreeing to be sexual partners. Marriage is the agreement to take mutual responsibility for the procreative nature of the sexual act, thus keeping both mother and father involved. Christ stated that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. This makes the decision of who we marry vitally important and not something to be done lightly. Throughout the ages we have had different methods to improve our chances of marital happiness whether its been through matchmakers or dating. But ultimately, when we are not married, we are single. We are free to leave. We are free to decide not to be with this person. Thus the marital commitment is not there and thus we lack the commitment to take responsibility for the procreative nature of the sexual act.

Now modern technology has allowed us to seemingly indulge in our lusts by tossing aside the procreative component. But in doing this we act in hostility to God’s sexual designs. We treat fertility as a disease to pursue pleasures whether its erotic pleasures or seeking out higher emotional states of intimacy and a sense of companionship.

However, whether or not it is a mortal sin depends on the will of the individual. We are only capable of sin through the will, through our ability to choose. I do think there are degrees of intent. We could really tweezer this down to question whether the intent involve absolute and total consent or partial consent. But such tweezering isn’t necessary if we are serious about obeying and loving God. If a person will only avoid sin because they think its mortal, than I think there is no ability to tweezer it anyway. Full consent of the will is there because the person is looking for a technicality to get away with it. But a person who is struggling to stay faithful and cares about all their sins I think shouldn’t worry about mortal or venial. What matters is that the act itself is a serious offense. Confession should be sought immediately regardless. The person simply should comfort themselves not to fear that they’ll end up in Hell because they died in a tornado before they got to confession. They needn’t beat themselves up about it. Focus on loving God and seeking truth and grace.

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)
I personally have no problem with sex between two committed people. If I was engaged and we were getting married I have no problem with sex in that situation. I don’t like societies casual attitude and the way that people have used sex as a weapon and bribery and everything else. But if two people are committed to each other then so what. Since a good deal of marriages end up divorced I don’t see the point in having to wait until I’m married if we’re engaged.
(Snip)

Hi, do you mind me asking why you think sex is ok within a commited relationship without marriage? I mean this as an honest question. Like I said to someperson earlier, I really don’t understand this opinion or why people would hold it. I’m guessing it comes either from a different understanding of sex, marriage, or both, so I would be very interested if you could try to explain what your understanding of these are. Thanks.

 

[Jacob_Morgan]

I am an armchair theologian although I do have a theology degree and I think you just confirmed the exact point you were criticizing. Funny how that happens.

The orignal post stated that if some physical action was ever permitted at all then it could not constitute grave matter. The original post didn’t argue that the circumstances were such that it was not grave, what it said was that if something is ever permissible that it can not be that bad in any given case. My post applied that logic to the boundries of human depravity and low and behold, by the logic of the original post, there is no such thing as grave matter, even in nuclear war, murder, etc.

Are you saying that I proved that there is no such thing as grave matter?

This could make for a fun game. Someone calls out a mortal sin then someone else has so many seconds to explain how it is, being allowed in some way at some time, not really a mortal sin after all. Making another Pauly Shore movie (never a good thing, ever) might be the only mortal sin that would stand under that logic.

 

[underacloud]

The orignal post stated that if some physical action was ever permitted at all then it could not constitute grave matter. The original post didn’t argue that the circumstances were such that it was not grave, what it said was that if something is ever permissible that it can not be that bad in any given case. My post applied that logic to the boundries of human depravity and low and behold, by the logic of the original post, there is no such thing as grave matter, even in nuclear war, murder, etc.

Are you saying that I proved that there is no such thing as grave matter?

This could make for a fun game. Someone calls out a mortal sin then someone else has so many seconds to explain how it is, being allowed in some way at some time, not really a mortal sin after all. Making another Pauly Shore movie (never a good thing, ever) might be the only mortal sin that would stand under that logic.

Cool game…can I try?

Pauly Shore did a guest spot on Futurama once. And Futurama is good. So, Pauly Shore movies cannot be mortal sins, since on some occasions Pauly Shore is acceptable.

 

[Sister_Terese]

*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*

Don’t forget the black pudding!

 

[minkymurph]

Where did I say or imply that the truth be delivered in the uncharitible ways you described?

You didn’t. Apologies if my post inferred you did as that was not my intention. What I was attempting to do is illustrate that just because a person may not want to know the truth, that in itself is not an indication they have a problem. There are many occasions when we may not want to know the truth. In relation to the scenario I gave you, we didn’t tell the truth not because we thought the person in question would not want to know the truth or had no right to know it, but because, rightly or wrongly, we felt it would be less upsetting, less cruel, to let time pass before we told him. We also thought in time he would catch on we weren’t telling the truth, understand why we didn’t tell him the truth, and just let the matter drop.

I cannot answer. I cannot tell if what you described is “lying”.

Your answer illustrates my point that we hesitate to define an act that can be described as a sin as ‘evil,’ or in this case even a sin at all, in certain circumstances. in that you’ve hesitated to describe the act of , shall we say, ‘not telling the truth’ as a lie.

To explain. Firstly, I apologize in advance for using the term ‘you’ in my explanation. I’m using it merely to illustrate my point and it is not intended to be accusatory or critical in any way. If had asked you if breaking into an old persons home and beating them to death was an evil act, it is likely you would have no hesitation in categorizing that act as ‘evil’ - and so would I. If had asked you if the act of having an abortion is evil, it is also likely you would not have hesitated in defining it as a sin and ‘evil’ - and I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.

If lying is simply ‘not telling the truth,’ then it can be argued we lied as we certainly didn’t tell the truth. If lying is a sin, and all sins are evil, then our act was evil. In this case, you hesitate to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in relation to whether or not our act was ‘evil,’ due to the fact your are unsure as to whether or not we lied. Therefore, is lying simply not telling the truth, or is more complicated? Can it be argued ‘not telling the truth’ in certain circumstances properly be defined as ‘not lying?’ In relation to the thread, is the sin of fornication simply engaging in sexual activity with someone you are not married to, or is that more complicated? If it is simply engaging in sexual activity with someone you are not married to, the same principle should be applied to lying, in that it is simply ‘not telling the truth.’ If it is more complicated, can it be argued in certain circumstances engaging in sexual activity with someone your are not married to is not fornication?

 

[minkymurph]

Sex is over rated??? No way. I have the polka theology view of sex. “In heaven there is no beer, that’s why we drink it here.” Same with sex. No sex in heaven so better enjoy it while you’re here.

Who says there’s no beer in heaven? Perhaps not but if the Irish are there, I bet there’s Guinness.

 

[minkymurph]

*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*

Don’t forget the black pudding!

Indeed, and sometimes white pudding and hash brown’s. But I would argue that’s an Anglicized version of a fry. The traditional Irish fry doesn’t have hash brown’s, and I would dispute the black and white pudding.