Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[prodigalson2011]

The church HAS committed very serious and grave errors. TONS of them.

You misunderstand. Members of the Church, both in hierarchy in laity, have committed grave sins and crimes. The doctrine has not changed. No doctrine has been changed since the inception of the Church. I recommend reading “The Fathers Know Best” for a look at just how consistent Church teaching has been over the past 2 millenia.

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.

He also said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into the fullness of truth (in other words, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) and that “whoever hears you (the Church) speak, hears me.” Infallibility applies only to the TEACHINGS of the Church on faith and morals; not the actions of the men within it.

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.

Again, this was not a case of the Church falling into error. This was a matter of prominent members of the Church committing actions that went against the established doctrine of the Church. The Church is more than the sum of its members. Think of it like this: If a congressman breaks a law, it doesn’t mean that the government is in error. It simply means that the congressman betrayed the system he is supposed to uphold.

 

[davidv]

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.

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.

Your illustration does not make this point. All sin = evil. Not all untruths are sinful.

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?

Fornication is not complicated if one understands the purpose of the human person and their sexuality. The marital act is designed to be both unitive and procreative. These functions are only licit in marriage. Any departure is an offense against the purpose of the human person and is therefore a sin.

 

[minkymurph]

Your illustration does not make this point. All sin = evil. Not all untruths are sinful.

Are you saying my illustration does not make the point - All sin = evil? If so, I’m not sure why you’ve stated this as my illustration was not intended to make this point. Or, are you saying my illustration does not make some other point? If so, what point?

My illustration was not actually intended to make any point, but rather to demonstrate there is a reluctance to categorize acts which can properly be defined as sin/evil as such in certain circumstances.

Fornication is not complicated if one understands the purpose of the human person and their sexuality. The marital act is designed to be both unitive and procreative. These functions are only licit in marriage. Any departure is an offense against the purpose of the human person and is therefore a sin.

That is not what I was disputing. What I was disputing was labeling fornication ‘evil’ in every circumstance and under every eventuality. It cannot be disputed there are circumstances in which being untruthful can properly be labeled ‘evil,’ and the same can be said of fornication. Reluctance to label an act such as being untruthful as ‘evil,’ or even a sin in some circumstances, cannot be considered non-arbitrary unless the same principle is applied to every other act that could properly be described as sin/evil in some circumstances. In order to be non-arbitrary, which justice is, the same principle should be applied to every sin.

 

[minkymurph]

Are you saying my illustration does not make the point - All sin = evil? If so, I’m not sure why you’ve stated this as my illustration was not intended to make this point. Or, are you saying my illustration does not make some other point? If so, what point?

My illustration was not actually intended to make any point, but rather to demonstrate there is a reluctance to categorize acts which can properly be defined as sin/evil as such in certain circumstances.

That is not what I was disputing. What I was disputing was labeling fornication ‘evil’ in every circumstance and under every eventuality. It cannot be disputed there are circumstances in which being untruthful can properly be labeled ‘evil,’ and the same can be said of fornication. Reluctance to label an act such as being untruthful as ‘evil,’ or even a sin in some circumstances, cannot be considered non-arbitrary unless the same principle is applied to every other act that could properly be described as sin/evil in some circumstances. In order to be non-arbitrary, which justice is, the same principle should be applied to every sin.

I would also like to add that the OP’s assertion was not, ‘fornication is not a sin,’ but rather not mortal sin. Being untruthful can be mortal sin. That being the case, you can understand why someone would question how and in what circumstances could being untruthful escape not only the ‘evil’ label, but may not be a sin at all, while fornication is categorized as mortal sin and labeled ‘evil’ in absolute terms?

 

[davidv]

Are you saying my illustration does not make the point - All sin = evil? If so, I’m not sure why you’ve stated this as my illustration was not intended to make this point. Or, are you saying my illustration does not make some other point? If so, what point?

My illustration was not actually intended to make any point, but rather to demonstrate there is a reluctance to categorize acts which can properly be defined as sin/evil as such in certain circumstances.

That is not what I was disputing. What I was disputing was labeling fornication ‘evil’ in every circumstance and under every eventuality. It cannot be disputed there are circumstances in which being untruthful can properly be labeled ‘evil,’ and the same can be said of fornication. Reluctance to label an act such as being untruthful as ‘evil,’ or even a sin in some circumstances, cannot be considered non-arbitrary unless the same principle is applied to every other act that could properly be described as sin/evil in some circumstances. In order to be non-arbitrary, which justice is, the same principle should be applied to every sin.

Your parallel doesn’t work. It is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Being untruthful was wrongful substituted for lying.

Lying is alway sinful (Thou shall not bear false witness). Fornication is always sinful (Thou shall not commit adultery).

When is sex outside marriage not fornication?

Edit: This is the definition of fornication that I am using:

2353 *Fornication *is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

 

[JNdoum]

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.

Priests don’t have sex because they are committed completely to the Church; i.e., they are married to the Church, and any sex outside of that would be, basically, adultery. Your comments about sex in heaven are on the verge of insanity. Sex is purely physical, our souls are not physical. Does the Bible not say that there will be no marriage in heaven? Things will be different. I am starting to be sick and tired of so-called “adults” and their insane obsession with sex. Really, you guys need to calm down. I am close to being thoroughly put off from the whole institution, and becoming a monk just to avoid it. Sex is for marriage, clean and simple. If you can’t wait, you probably shouldn’t be having it. Keep it in your pants. Seriously. This is getting gross.

 

[someperson555]

Priests don’t have sex because they are committed completely to the Church; i.e., they are married to the Church, and any sex outside of that would be, basically, adultery. Your comments about sex in heaven are on the verge of insanity. Sex is purely physical, our souls are not physical. Does the Bible not say that there will be no marriage in heaven? Things will be different. I am starting to be sick and tired of so-called “adults” and their insane obsession with sex. Really, you guys need to calm down. I am close to being thoroughly put off from the whole institution, and becoming a monk just to avoid it. Sex is for marriage, clean and simple. If you can’t wait, you probably shouldn’t be having it. Keep it in your pants. Seriously. This is getting gross.

this is where you people dont make sense.
when i say “hey why cant people be free to have sex outside of marriage?”
you reply by saying “oh sex is holy and a gift from God”
so then i ask 'well if sex is really supposed to be a good thing, then why is celibacy praised and preferred in the church?"
and then you say “well sex is just sex, its just a physical act”.

well thats my point, if its really just a physical act, then why cant people be free to engage in it more liberally. im sorry but you dont make sense.
my main question has still not been answered, what is so bad about people having sex outside of marriage? why should someone be thrown into eternal torments simply for a few minutes of passion?
you and most other people on here seem to have a neurotic attitude towards sex, are you guys really so sheltered? do you really think that people just started having premarital sex a few years ago?
the human body is beautiful, and there is nothing sinful or “evil” about it.

 

[someperson555]

SomePerson,

You seem to be upset because you have presented an argument and people have ignored it. Would you mind re-presenting this argument? I have to admit that I am a little lost as to what exactly your argument was. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that you did not find anyone’s answers to be satisfying? If they were never able to understand what you argument actually was then they would not be able to answer it clearly. I know that I wrote quite passionately in some of my previous posts, but I am very capable of having a dispassionate, logical discussion. The point I was essentially trying to make earlier, removed from the emotional style of writing, is that whether one sees sex outside of marriage as ok or not is going to depend on what one thinks sex actually is. I can see an understanding of sex which would make it perfectly ok to have sex anytime anywhere, or an understanding which means that it ought to be reserved only for marriage, I find it very difficult to understand the view of sex which says it is to be reserved only for somewhat serious relationships, but which has no porblem with sex outside of marriage in a semi-serious relationship. In the first case, sex is simply viewed as something that is a natural and physically pleasurable function. It is viewed as something which is simply ordered towards pleasure. (Don’t worry, I understand that this is not the view that you hold) The view that says sex should be preserved for marriage views sex as a complete gift of self the very nature of which makes it fitting only within the context of a complete unconditional commitment between those involved. I can understand both of these positions, I think the first is based on a very false and superficial understanding of sex, but I can understand that point of view. I must admit, however, to still being confused as to your point of view. What do you see as being the nature of sex and how does that particular understanding of sex lead to the idea that it is suitable for semi-serious relationships? I assume that the argument you made earlier in this thread must be essentially this explanation but I honestly have not been able to understand it and would appreciate it if you tried to elaborate further.

my argument is that fornication is not always a mortal sin. in my opinion it becomes a mortal sin when you put it above the more important things in life such as other people’s well being. but two people giving eachother physical pleasure is just not an evil thing in my opinion. because if you go with the old tired argument that by fornicating you are simply “using” the other, then dont eat at restaurants, dont get massages, dont let anyone do anything for you that gives you pleasure. because then isnt letting someone cook you a nice meal “using them for your own pleasure”?
and im sorrry but i cant agree with your view of sex, since its obvious that the church looks negatively on sex, early on we used to refer to people who had sex as having been “defiled” (even if this was within marriage!).
so im sorry but i just cant buy it when you try to tell me that sex is “sacred”. i had sex at a very early age, and you know what, im glad i did, i really dont feel any guilt for it. and frankly i dont want to. it was a special event in my life which i cherish and remember with fondness it the day i became a man. if it truly offended God then i am sorry FOR OFFENDING GOD. but i am not sorry for having sex. i mean how inhibited do some people have to be to feel guilt over something that is completely natural?
(just for the record i dont engage in sex anymore since i am being obedient to the church, and i certainly recommend everyone else to be obedient too)

now i cant speak for Jesus, but i truly believe that on judgment day what will truly matter is wether or not we were loving, caring, compassionate, merciful, respecftul, and forgiving. i dont think he will base the fate of our souls on how many times you fooled around with the girl who sat next to you in eighth grade.
thats just what i think. but i could be wrong! maybe Jesus will judge us more in a legalistic manner, and i have no problem accepting that, but i need to know WHY. i need to know why a loving and forgiving person can still be thrown into Hell for simply pursuing his pleasures on the side.

 

[Gorgias]

this is where you people dont make sense.
when i say “hey why cant people be free to have sex outside of marriage?”
you reply by saying “oh sex is holy and a gift from God”
so then i ask 'well if sex is really supposed to be a good thing, then why is celibacy praised and preferred in the church?"
and then you say “well sex is just sex, its just a physical act”.

That’s not how I’d answer the celibacy question: I’d answer “not all gifts are for all people”. Does that mean that the gift of sexuality isn’t a good thing? Of course not – but the gift of celibacy is a good thing, too.

my main question has still not been answered, what is so bad about people having sex outside of marriage?

Hmm… interesting perspective. It would seem that there are pages and pages of answers to why sex outside of marriage is a bad thing.

do you really think that people just started having premarital sex a few years ago?

Of course not. Do you think that God just started telling humanity that premarital sex was a bad thing a few years ago?

the human body is beautiful, and there is nothing sinful or “evil” about it.

You’re changing the argument again! We’re not saying that there’s anything sinful or evil about the human body! Of course, there are ways to use the beautiful human body that are sinful and evil!

 

[JNdoum]

this is where you people dont make sense.
when i say “hey why cant people be free to have sex outside of marriage?”
you reply by saying “oh sex is holy and a gift from God”
so then i ask 'well if sex is really supposed to be a good thing, then why is celibacy praised and preferred in the church?"
and then you say “well sex is just sex, its just a physical act”.

well thats my point, if its really just a physical act, then why cant people be free to engage in it more liberally. im sorry but you dont make sense.
my main question has still not been answered, what is so bad about people having sex outside of marriage? why should someone be thrown into eternal torments simply for a few minutes of passion?
you and most other people on here seem to have a neurotic attitude towards sex, are you guys really so sheltered? do you really think that people just started having premarital sex a few years ago?
the human body is beautiful, and there is nothing sinful or “evil” about it.

Well, I don’t know where I said “sex is just sex,” but if I did I apologize, this is an incorrect statement. I do recall saying that obsession with sex is a bad thing, which I admit may have been unclear. Allow me to re-make my point.

Marriage is a Sacrament; holy, instituted by God, etc. You may re-read those arguments at your leisure. I do not know if you are a boy or a girl, but something makes me assume you are a guy, just from your tone. I apologize if I am incorrect.

Sex is never just a few moments of passion. Sex is a sign of love between two married persons. In modern society, this is often corrupted. I have three sisters, and nothing makes me sicker to my stomach than to see what men think of sex, and what is in store for them. My older sister has doubtless already experienced it. I see it as this; I look at a woman, and I see a person, who has complex thoughts and a complex being, in whom Christ lives and whom I should treat with special care. I simply cannot imagine sex with that person as being nothing more than a few moments of passion.

Think about it. God made that woman! He took great care over every detail of her, and somehow it’s okay for me to just think about and want one thing from her, the most intimate part of her, and leave? How do you justify this? How is it okay to say that all she should expect out of sex is a few moments of passion?

I think my sisters deserve the very best out of sex; sex with a man who loves them dearly, and has made an eternal commitment to her, before God and the Church (the Church being the Catholic community). He thought his love for her important enough to talk about and verify before God and all of His people. How on earth do you consider this unnecessary?

I think we have beat the numerous religious reasons for sex within marriage to death. I can tell you one thing, when I say you’ve ignored them, I truly mean you completely skipped over some very good arguments. Look at it this way; you say marriage is when two people decide to be with each other forever. Okay, I disagree, but let’s go with that. If you truly want to be with someone forever, what;s the rush? Why not wait until you can verify your love before your community, and your God? And if this seems unimportant to you, why so? If I loved a woman - and I mean truly loved her - I would want to tell everyone. I wouldn’t want to keep that love a secret. I would want to dedicate myself to her, and to do things for her sake, and not my own.

I could go on and on about that, but the point is, if she is not special enough to you to think of sex with her as more than “just sex” or some kind of vague, mysterious pressure building up in the two of you, why not wait? More importantly, why not make a sign of it?

I think you also have a slightly confused notion of what marriage is. You consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. In truth, a marriage involves the entire community, which is why it is so important to get married. I find it hard to describe this to you, because it seems so simple and obvious to me. The reason why you fail to see marriage as something important baffles me.

A husband and wife truly become one flesh when they are married. They support each other, they are devoted to each other, they live for each other and do what is good for each other. More importantly, they love each other, and this love draws other people in: their children, their family, their community. Have you ever seen two married people who were truly in love with each other? A love which welcomed in all who came by? Have you ever seen a man who dedicated himself to his wife and family, and never seemed to tire of it?

I’m not sure what prevents me from making my point. God made us in twos; man and woman. He said in the beginning that it was not right for man to be alone. He made the Sacrament of marriage, so that man and woman could love each other, and center their love around God, around Christ. Sex is a natural outgrowth of that, a sacred and holy thing. Yet you cheapen it, and claim you are doing it a service.

Would you please explain yourself to me, because I am baffled. I just do not understand your logic at all. I don’t know whether you think sex is holy, or indeed “just sex.” All I know is that you seem to be against the sexual revolution, yet you pussyfoot around the definition of fornication, in a way which, on the surface, seems to be an attempt to justify what you’re already doing.

At times, it seems you are simply making a tirade against the Church. Which confuses me, because you use the term “the Church” incorrectly. The Church refers to all Catholics living on earth and all the saints in heaven, and Christ, the Head of the Church. If you refer to the pope, or the magisterium, then I ask you this: who are the popes, and who makes the magisterium? Are they not men, just like you or I, who seek God’s truth? You may ask, then, what is the difference between those men and you or I?

The fact that those men have dedicated their lives to the study of this, have no particular personal investment in the morality of it, the fact that all of these men had lengthy educations in Theology and Philosophy as a requirement to the priesthood, and spend most of their time which is not occupied doing things related to their priesthood studying the faith, along with their Sacramental authority as men consecrated to God, and the guide of the Holy Spirit which is ever present in the Church. If you cannot trust this authority, then you probably could not trust the most annotated of textbooks in Physics either. If anyone is qualified, those men are, and they give reasons for what they say.

Once again, I suggest you read “Theology of the Body” by Pope John Paul II, and consider the matter prayerfully.

 

[Gorgias]

because if you go with the old tired argument that by fornicating you are simply “using” the other, then dont eat at restaurants, dont get massages, dont let anyone do anything for you that gives you pleasure. because then isnt letting someone cook you a nice meal “using them for your own pleasure”?

No – there isn’t anything wrong for using a good thing for its intended purpose, and enjoying it while you do. When I go to a restaurant, I have dinner; the intended purpose of eating is to provide nourishment for my body. I do that at a restaurant. Enjoying my dinner, while in the process of getting that nourishment, is a good thing, too.

The intended purpose of sex is procreation and unity in marriage. Enjoying sex within marriage is also a good thing.

On the other hand, if I went to a restaurant and enjoyed my food, and then immediately went to the bathroom and purged, then there’d be a problem. I’d have been eating, but not for its intended purpose. I’d be harming my body and abusing the act of eating.

Same thing with sex: if I went out and had sex randomly, even with someone I cared about (but wasn’t married to), then I wouldn’t be using sex for its intended purposes – instead, I’d just be doing it for the pleasure. It’d be just like having dinner and then purging it: I’d be harming myself and abusing the act of sex.

Thanks for the example, though – it makes it clearer why we are saying what we’re saying!

its obvious that the church looks negatively on pre-marital sex

There… fixed that for you. You’re welcome!

now i cant speak for Jesus, but i truly believe that on judgment day what will truly matter is wether or not we were loving, caring, compassionate, merciful, respecftul, and forgiving. i dont think he will base the fate of our souls on how many times you fooled around with the girl who sat next to you in eighth grade.

unless, of course, fooling around with the girl who sat next to you in the eighth grade wasn’t loving, caring, compassionate and respectful…

i need to know WHY. i need to know why a loving and forgiving person can still be thrown into Hell for simply pursuing his pleasures on the side.

because it’s not loving, caring, compassionate, and respectful – of both yourself and the other person(s). It’s as easy as that!

 

[JNdoum]

my argument is that fornication is not always a mortal sin. in my opinion it becomes a mortal sin when you put it above the more important things in life such as other people’s well being. but two people giving eachother physical pleasure is just not an evil thing in my opinion. because if you go with the old tired argument that by fornicating you are simply “using” the other, then dont eat at restaurants, dont get massages, dont let anyone do anything for you that gives you pleasure. because then isnt letting someone cook you a nice meal “using them for your own pleasure”?
and im sorrry but i cant agree with your view of sex, since its obvious that the church looks negatively on sex, early on we used to refer to people who had sex as having been “defiled” (even if this was within marriage!).
so im sorry but i just cant buy it when you try to tell me that sex is “sacred”. i had sex at a very early age, and you know what, im glad i did, i really dont feel any guilt for it. and frankly i dont want to. it was a special event in my life which i cherish and remember with fondness it the day i became a man. if it truly offended God then i am sorry FOR OFFENDING GOD. but i am not sorry for having sex. i mean how inhibited do some people have to be to feel guilt over something that is completely natural?
(just for the record i dont engage in sex anymore since i am being obedient to the church, and i certainly recommend everyone else to be obedient too)

now i cant speak for Jesus, but i truly believe that on judgment day what will truly matter is wether or not we were loving, caring, compassionate, merciful, respecftul, and forgiving. i dont think he will base the fate of our souls on how many times you fooled around with the girl who sat next to you in eighth grade.
thats just what i think. but i could be wrong! maybe Jesus will judge us more in a legalistic manner, and i have no problem accepting that, but i need to know WHY. i need to know why a loving and forgiving person can still be thrown into Hell for simply pursuing his pleasures on the side.

For the record, I don’t believe anyone was trying to say you or anyone was going to hell for having sex outside of marriage. God is merciful above all things, and you certainly can be forgiven, but only if you recognize the sin and repent honestly for it. Besides this, there is Purgatory, which is a whole other argument. The point here, which everyone is trying to make, is that sex outside of marriage is sinful, not whether or not you will go to hell for doing it. We cannot possibly know that.

 

[thebookofesther]

Yup, you’re right you’re smarter than every pope, cardinal, or bishop that has ever existed. Who knew this guy would figure it out.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

my argument is that fornication is not always a mortal sin. in my opinion it becomes a mortal sin when you put it above the more important things in life such as other people’s well being. but two people giving eachother physical pleasure is just not an evil thing in my opinion. because if you go with the old tired argument that by fornicating you are simply “using” the other, then dont eat at restaurants, dont get massages, dont let anyone do anything for you that gives you pleasure. because then isnt letting someone cook you a nice meal “using them for your own pleasure”?
and im sorrry but i cant agree with your view of sex, since its obvious that the church looks negatively on sex, early on we used to refer to people who had sex as having been “defiled” (even if this was within marriage!).
so im sorry but i just cant buy it when you try to tell me that sex is “sacred”. i had sex at a very early age, and you know what, im glad i did, i really dont feel any guilt for it. and frankly i dont want to. it was a special event in my life which i cherish and remember with fondness it the day i became a man. if it truly offended God then i am sorry FOR OFFENDING GOD. but i am not sorry for having sex. i mean how inhibited do some people have to be to feel guilt over something that is completely natural?
(just for the record i dont engage in sex anymore since i am being obedient to the church, and i certainly recommend everyone else to be obedient too)

now i cant speak for Jesus, but i truly believe that on judgment day what will truly matter is wether or not we were loving, caring, compassionate, merciful, respecftul, and forgiving. i dont think he will base the fate of our souls on how many times you fooled around with the girl who sat next to you in eighth grade.
thats just what i think. but i could be wrong! maybe Jesus will judge us more in a legalistic manner, and i have no problem accepting that, but i need to know WHY. i need to know why a loving and forgiving person can still be thrown into Hell for simply pursuing his pleasures on the side.

I have read all of your arguments and I have serious doubts that you are Catholic. If you are, you have not been properly catechized, because everything you write goes against Catholic teaching since the time of Christ…and all of your arguments won’t change that.
I also think that you love to argue for arguments sake, somehow prooving you are smarter than others on this site.
If, however, you are sincere in your beliefs about fornication, you are in a massive state of psycholigical denial in order to justify your hormonal induced lust; and the only cure for that is not sexual activity, but simply a cold shower and prayer.
As you get older, whether you get married or not, you will find that sexual activity will become the least of your worries. It is only when you are young- in your teens, twenties, and part of your thirties that you can be obsessed by it.
All I can add is be carefull of your soul and don’t deceive yourself. Like it or not, fornication by any definition is a mortal sin. Pure and simple period!

 

[underacloud]

now i cant speak for Jesus, but i truly believe that on judgment day what will truly matter is wether or not we were loving, caring, compassionate, merciful, respecftul, and forgiving. i dont think he will base the fate of our souls on how many times you fooled around with the girl who sat next to you in eighth grade.
thats just what i think. but i could be wrong! maybe Jesus will judge us more in a legalistic manner, and i have no problem accepting that, but i need to know WHY. i need to know why a loving and forgiving person can still be thrown into Hell for simply pursuing his pleasures on the side.

If a person knows that something is a mortal sin, and freely chooses to do it, then they reject God. God allows that free will and allows that rejection…so unless they repent, they will go to hell. They choose this for themselves.

Obedience to God is more important than understanding. It’s great to know the reasons why things are sinful, but ultimately our small brains/minds cannot comprehend all of God’s complex creation and design. For each of us, there will be matters that we struggle to understand. Even great thinkers struggle to comprehend everything…for example, I think Augustine is way off on a few of his views on sex. Perhaps this - fornication - is one of those issues where you won’t find any answers satisfying and you’ll simply have to relly on God’s guidance through the Church?

 

[someperson555]

Well, I don’t know where I said “sex is just sex,” but if I did I apologize, this is an incorrect statement. I do recall saying that obsession with sex is a bad thing, which I admit may have been unclear. Allow me to re-make my point.

Marriage is a Sacrament; holy, instituted by God, etc. You may re-read those arguments at your leisure. I do not know if you are a boy or a girl, but something makes me assume you are a guy, just from your tone. I apologize if I am incorrect.

Sex is never just a few moments of passion. Sex is a sign of love between two married persons. In modern society, this is often corrupted. I have three sisters, and nothing makes me sicker to my stomach than to see what men think of sex, and what is in store for them. My older sister has doubtless already experienced it. I see it as this; I look at a woman, and I see a person, who has complex thoughts and a complex being, in whom Christ lives and whom I should treat with special care. I simply cannot imagine sex with that person as being nothing more than a few moments of passion.

(yes im a guy), im sorry but i sense some sexism in this comment. ill have you know that in all the relationships ive been in so far it was my girlfriend who initiated the sex. i didnt seek it out. women like sex too. correct me if im wrong, but i feel as though many of the women on here have secret hatred of sex. forgive me for saying that but thats the impression i get. they all praise the church’s teaching on sex before marriage, yet ive seen many women on here complaining about the “marital obligation of sex”. but thats a different topic for a different thread…

Think about it. God made that woman! He took great care over every detail of her, and somehow it’s okay for me to just think about and want one thing from her, the most intimate part of her, and leave? How do you justify this? How is it okay to say that all she should expect out of sex is a few moments of passion?

this is exactly what i cant find a problem with. people can still acknoledge the importance of the other and still have sex with them. are you seriously trying to tell me that within marriage its somehow different? are you saying that married people dont care about sexual pleasure at all? when a husband and wife decide to have sex, are you asserting that at that moment they arent just thinking about that “one thing”?

I think my sisters deserve the very best out of sex; sex with a man who loves them dearly, and has made an eternal commitment to her, before God and the Church (the Church being the Catholic community). He thought his love for her important enough to talk about and verify before God and all of His people. How on earth do you consider this unnecessary?

but thats love, that is different from sex. i think its here where my main problem is. (perhaps you can help me with this) i have always seen sex as something different than love. you can love someone without having sex, and vice versa. why does sex matter so much? why are you only allowed to have sex with one person who you love? as long as you dont over indulge and you dont value sex more than the well being of others, what is the problem?
as i said before i am against the sexual revolution which claims that “anything goes and over indulgence is ok, etc”
but this slippery slope goes both ways! remember not two hundred years ago women wer expected to cover their ankles even! and the early church fathers denied communion to men who had nocturnal emissions. can you justify that in any way?

I think we have beat the numerous religious reasons for sex within marriage to death. I can tell you one thing, when I say you’ve ignored them, I truly mean you completely skipped over some very good arguments. Look at it this way; you say marriage is when two people decide to be with each other forever. Okay, I disagree, but let’s go with that. If you truly want to be with someone forever, what;s the rush? Why not wait until you can verify your love before your community, and your God? And if this seems unimportant to you, why so? If I loved a woman - and I mean truly loved her - I would want to tell everyone. I wouldn’t want to keep that love a secret. I would want to dedicate myself to her, and to do things for her sake, and not my own.
i disagree, i agree that a mcouple of people who posted here truly did make me think, and i am considering wat they said. but most of the comments i recieved were just quotes from the catechism and sarcastic comments claiming that “im just a stupid guy whos trying to rationalise his lust”. which is so far from the truth.

i would agree with you if people would be allowed to divorce. but the church doesnt even alow that. so istead of rushing into marriage just so they can have sex, its better to just have sex now and determine wether or not theres true love in that relationship! because you know the strict views on sexuality ion the church can also harm people. young people may confuse intense lust for feelings of lust, therefore marry early on, only to tragically figure out that they never loved eachother in the first place. since marriage is an indisoluble bond, in my opinion its safer to live together first, so that you can get out of the relationship if it turnsout to be a mistake.
I could go on and on about that, but the point is, if she is not special enough to you to think of sex with her as more than “just sex” or some kind of vague, mysterious pressure building up in the two of you, why not wait? More importantly, why not make a sign of it?

I

think you also have a slightly confused notion of what marriage is. You consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. In truth, a marriage involves the entire community, which is why it is so important to get married. I find it hard to describe this to you, because it seems so simple and obvious to me. The reason why you fail to see marriage as something important baffles me.

A husband and wife truly become one flesh when they are married. They support each other, they are devoted to each other, they live for each other and do what is good for each other. More importantly, they love each other, and this love draws other people in: their children, their family, their community. Have you ever seen two married people who were truly in love with each other? A love which welcomed in all who came by? Have you ever seen a man who dedicated himself to his wife and family, and never seemed to tire of it?

I’m not sure what prevents me from making my point. God made us in twos; man and woman. He said in the beginning that it was not right for man to be alone. He made the Sacrament of marriage, so that man and woman could love each other, and center their love around God, around Christ. Sex is a natural outgrowth of that, a sacred and holy thing. Yet you cheapen it, and claim you are doing it a service.

Would you please explain yourself to me, because I am baffled. I just do not understand your logic at all. I don’t know whether you think sex is holy, or indeed “just sex.” All I know is that you seem to be against the sexual revolution, yet you pussyfoot around the definition of fornication, in a way which, on the surface, seems to be an attempt to justify what you’re already doing.

At times, it seems you are simply making a tirade against the Church. Which confuses me, because you use the term “the Church” incorrectly. The Church refers to all Catholics living on earth and all the saints in heaven, and Christ, the Head of the Church. If you refer to the pope, or the magisterium, then I ask you this: who are the popes, and who makes the magisterium? Are they not men, just like you or I, who seek God’s truth? You may ask, then, what is the difference between those men and you or I?

The fact that those men have dedicated their lives to the study of this, have no particular personal investment in the morality of it, the fact that all of these men had lengthy educations in Theology and Philosophy as a requirement to the priesthood, and spend most of their time which is not occupied doing things related to their priesthood studying the faith, along with their Sacramental authority as men consecrated to God, and the guide of the Holy Spirit which is ever present in the Church. If you cannot trust this authority, then you probably could not trust the most annotated of textbooks in Physics either. If anyone is qualified, those men are, and they give reasons for what they say.

Once again, I suggest you read “Theology of the Body” by Pope John Paul II, and consider the matter prayerfully.

if theology of the body simply repeats that sex is only licit within marriage and doesnt provide any deeper philosophical reasoning then i am not interested in reading it.

 

[someperson555]

I have read all of your arguments and I have serious doubts that you are Catholic. If you are, you have not been properly catechized, because everything you write goes against Catholic teaching since the time of Christ…and all of your arguments won’t change that.
I also think that you love to argue for arguments sake, somehow prooving you are smarter than others on this site.
If, however, you are sincere in your beliefs about fornication, you are in a massive state of psycholigical denial in order to justify your hormonal induced lust; and the only cure for that is not sexual activity, but simply a cold shower and prayer.
As you get older, whether you get married or not, you will find that sexual activity will become the least of your worries. It is only when you are young- in your teens, twenties, and part of your thirties that you can be obsessed by it.
All I can add is be carefull of your soul and don’t deceive yourself. Like it or not, fornication by any definition is a mortal sin. Pure and simple period!

just what do you know about me or how religous i am?
what position are you in to judge my faith? such audacity!
just because i dont mindlessly accept something as truth makes me heretical? why do you and others keep accusing me of trying to “rationalise my lust”? (sigh) i guess since you cant attack the argument you attack the one making the argument. typical ad hominem.
does every truth have to be unpleasent? my motivation for questioning a truth doesnt make any difference. it doesnt chang the facts. i could be right and i could be wrong, but why are you so interested in the reason im posing the question? thats not how a debate works.

oh and im sorry, i didnt realise that debating on a forum meant agreeing with everyone, my bad.

 

[someperson555]

If a person knows that something is a mortal sin, and freely chooses to do it, then they reject God. God allows that free will and allows that rejection…so unless they repent, they will go to hell. They choose this for themselves.

Obedience to God is more important than understanding. It’s great to know the reasons why things are sinful, but ultimately our small brains/minds cannot comprehend all of God’s complex creation and design. For each of us, there will be matters that we struggle to understand. Even great thinkers struggle to comprehend everything…for example, I think Augustine is way off on a few of his views on sex. Perhaps this - fornication - is one of those issues where you won’t find any answers satisfying and you’ll simply have to relly on God’s guidance through the Church?

thank you!
an honest response. i can accept this. and actually i do. i can understand that some things are a matter of faith. but that doesnt mean we shouldnt even try to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Sister_Terese]

I would also like to add that the OP’s assertion was not, ‘fornication is not a sin,’ but rather not mortal sin. Being untruthful can be mortal sin. That being the case, you can understand why someone would question how and in what circumstances could being untruthful escape not only the ‘evil’ label, but may not be a sin at all, while fornication is categorized as mortal sin and labeled ‘evil’ in absolute terms?

There are three things required to commit a mortal sin:

1. The thought, word or action must be a grave matter. (Any act deemed a grave matter by the Catholic Church IS an evil act and a grave matter. Therefore, any kind of sexual activity, including masturbation, outside of marriage is intrinsicly evil and a grave matter.)
2. The person must know that it is a grave matter. (And this is where a lot of fence straddlers get hung up.)
3. The person makes the decision to do it anyway.

This is from the catechism. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Sister_Terese]

if theology of the body simply repeats that sex is only licit within marriage and doesnt provide any deeper philosophical reasoning then i am not interested in reading it.

I think everyone who has responded to you has given you copious amounts of philosophical reasoning. You just choose to ignore them. The encyclical “Theology of the Body” is beautiful and philosophical work and should be read numerous times–meditatively. You don’t want to hear about sex being illicit outside of marriage because it doesn’t fit into your lifestyle and/or belief system. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it.”