Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[thewanderer]

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.

Thanks for your response.
I’m sorry if I’m being a little dense, but I’m still not sure that I understand exactly what your argument is. The best that I can figure it out is that since sex is just people giving each other physical pleasure, then its not necessary for it to be reserved for marriage. I think the reason I have a hard time understanding this is that if sex is just physical pleasure and there’s nothing wrong with people giving each other physical pleasure then I don’t see how there can be anything wrong with casual sex. I mean, I can understand why some people think casual sex is fine, because they just view sex as physical pleasure, but I still don’t understand what is different about your understanding of sex which makes you see casual sex as wrong, if you only view sex as some sort of physical pleasure.

As to you not buying my arguments about what the Church teaches, well, I admit that I haven’t really given any evidence for this being the teaching of the Church itself, (although I could go look up the CCC and argue about the interpretation of it if you really want to) But I don’t see how that ultimately makes a difference. Even if I left the Church tomorrow, I would still be against sex before marriage. I am not somebody who just simply follows Church teachings blindly either, I am well aware of the importance of seeking out a true understanding of reality in order to help understand Church teaching. And I have to honestly say that my understanding of the full meaning of sex leaves me with no other option but to wait for marriage, because I don’t want to give myself so completely and vulnerably to somebody without a full comitment from them. If I thought sex was just about physical pleasure, then sure, I wouldn’t see a problem with sexx before marriage, but I see so much more to sex than just that. And I suspect you see that too, or else I don’t understand why you would be against casual sex. Whatever your opinions off what the Church teaches about it, as you said, we should be looking to nature and to the reality we see to help us understand. In my attempts to do so I have found so much meaning involved in sex when it is its most beautiful, in an unconditional relationship, that sex outside of that kind of setting pales in comparison. Admittedly, sex in a comitted relationship, such as fiance’s comes much closer to this ideal than simply casual sex, but it still doesn’t reach it fully. This is not something I am just repeating because Church documents say so, nor is my argument against sex outside marriage that you are necessarily using each other, I readily admit that this kind of argument is thrown around way too lightly without really getting to the heart of the question. Instead it is honestly that the way I view sex leads me to see sex without an unconditional comitment between those involved as greatly lacking, and, quite honestly, to seem just a little shallow, even if it is between two people in a a somewhat comitted relationship, it just isn’t what it should, and could be.

I know you’re getting a lot of flack for your opinions here so far, but if you could try and explain more what you think is the importance and meaning of both sex and marriage it might help me understand where you are coming from better. I still don’t understand exactly where you are coming from. I see that your understanding of sex must be more than simply physical pleasure, or else you would be against casual sex, so you see some of the importance of comitment and so must see that there really is some level of vulnerability and gift of self at play in sex which is not recognized by many in society, but it also seems that you don’t see sex as being quite as vulnerable or as much of a self-gift as I do or else you too would be against sex before marriage. Then again, I could be completely off on this. but perhaps this will help you to understand what I am confused about in your position? I am willing to have an open dialogue about this and will try my best to help explain how I view things as well if you are interested.

 

[Irishgal49]

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

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

The Church is not just buildings, the Church is the people and I would never believe that everything people say is 100% true.

 

[Irishgal49]

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:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” is not fornication. I have a rabbi’s word on that one.

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

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

 

[Irishgal49]

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.
now a good honest philosopher will try to get to the root of the problem. 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.

HOWEVER, if a person can have sex in a temperant responsible fashion, then it shouldnt be a mortal sin.
ive been studying the buddhist concept of ‘the third way’, and i think it makes more sense than the christian teaching. dont get me wrong, im a christian catholic through and through, but i think the buddhist third way is compatible with a christian lifestyle.
in the bible jesus was mostly silent about sexual morality. i think this was because we cant be too legalistic about these things. he even warned us against being legalistic. which is why i came to the conclusion that simple fornication in a relationship between good friends may not always be a mortal sin.
and please understand, i make my argument in the most respectful way, i do not want to offend anyone, i am honestly just searching for the truth. so i would appreciate anyone’s discourse on this matter.

I agree with you totally on this. But I don’t agree on some of the teachings of the Church. There is no way I would have enough trust in one faith to “drink the kool aid”. I have this curse of “thinking for myself”

 

[SeekNFind]

“There is a way that seemeth to a man right: and the ends thereof lead to death.” Proverbs 16:25

God’s way is the best way. No need to twist His instructions around to fit what our flesh wants us to do.

Pax.

 

[Holly3278]

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.
now a good honest philosopher will try to get to the root of the problem. 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.

HOWEVER, if a person can have sex in a temperant responsible fashion, then it shouldnt be a mortal sin.
ive been studying the buddhist concept of ‘the third way’, and i think it makes more sense than the christian teaching. dont get me wrong, im a christian catholic through and through, but i think the buddhist third way is compatible with a christian lifestyle.
in the bible jesus was mostly silent about sexual morality. i think this was because we cant be too legalistic about these things. he even warned us against being legalistic. which is why i came to the conclusion that simple fornication in a relationship between good friends may not always be a mortal sin.
and please understand, i make my argument in the most respectful way, i do not want to offend anyone, i am honestly just searching for the truth. so i would appreciate anyone’s discourse on this matter.

Your argument makes no sense at all. If we need a license so we can have sex then that means that sex is sometimes morally fine. If it was always evil we wouldn’t even have a “license” for it. And think about it, we also wouldn’t have the Sacrament of Matrimony if sex was always evil. However, just because sex is not always evil does not mean that it is always fine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on that:

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.

**2396 **Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

**1852 **There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

**1853 **Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.” But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

**1755 **A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids. “Lust of the eyes” leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the fifth commandment.319 Avarice, like fornication, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three prescriptions of the Law. The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart; with the ninth, it summarizes all the precepts of the Law.

As you can see, the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly condemns fornication. Scripture does as well. I will not mention the Bible passages that condemn it but all you have to do is get a Bible with a concordance and you can easily see where it condemns fornication.

That said, keep in mind that the Catholic Church teaches infallibly when it comes to faith and morals. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the teaching of the Church and we seen clearly above that it condemns fornication. Therefore, the condemnation of fornication is an infallible condemnation. Fornication is wrong regardless of how you look at it and it is a grave sin which means it can be a mortal sin if the three conditions for mortal sin is met.

 

[epan]

yes i was meaning to respond to you too. i agree with most of what you said there, but lets say a guy is a millionare and he can afford to provide for hundreds of children, therefore he should be able to father children with multiple women. i think this is actually quite a noble thing to do for a wealthy man.
and yes i agree completely that if two people engage in sex they should be prepared to deal with the possible outcomes! but again i ask, where is the need for marriage in all this?

the last part of what you said is simply not true, two unmarried people can indeed be responsible enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

It is not necessary to be married, in order to be committed to each other. It is not necessary to be married, in order to raise children well. There was a time when society made it much more difficult for unmarried people. That is not true anymore. So, the arguments that sex must be procreative are largely irrelevant, when used to justify the marriage requirement, in our society. The Catholic opinion in this respect is anachronistic, and not reflective of current realities. There are some churches which disagree with the Catholic opinion on homosexuality.

You are correct that much of Buddhist teaching does not conflict with Christian teaching. Those who understand Buddhism seem to get this. Those who don’t understand Buddist teachings often disagree.

The Catholic Church does not compromise in its teachings about sex. Masturbation, adultery, and homosexuality are sinful. This opinion is backed by more than 1,000 years of concurring opinions. So, if you consider yourself Catholic, then your behavior should conform to this standard. Every Christian church which I am familiar with shares the Catholic opinion about marriage and adultery. Some may disagree about masturbation. But I am not well versed on the opinions of various Christian denominations, so there may be some who share your view.

 

[JNdoum]

(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…

I’m not sure where you get your opinions on the women here, and find them confusing. Every time someone draws a reasonable assumption on you based on what they read here and their past experience, you jump on them, crying “ad hominem.” Yet you make such a comment on women you don’t know much about at all based on a few off comments.

Besides this, there is a lot going on when a woman offers sex, which we guys are hardly ever aware of. In truth, I come to see things this way; most women do not like sex in and of itself, rather they value the things which they gain from it: stability in the relationship, the man’s love, etc. However, men don’t see it this way, most of the time. Sex is, to many men, just sex, done for its own sake, so women do not get the things they wanted to get out of it. For some reason, though it gets tried again and again.

There are a lot of factors which may or may not contribute to female enjoyment of sex, but that is quite another topic.

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”?

Sexual pleasure is certainly a factor, yet you miss the point. Sexual please is a good that comes from it, but it is not the aim. When married, the couple has sex for the sake of mutual love, to be open to life, to join themselves into one flesh. Ideally, they do not simply go at it for sex’s sake, they do it for the sake of their spouse. If you’ve ever read the novel, “One Night With the King,” consider Hadassah’s approach to sex with Xerxes or whatever his name was. In a marriage, it is done for the sake of your spouse, not your own sake. Admittedly, not every marriage is perfect, but that is no reason to give up on the ideal. That would be like saying that since people steal even though it’s illegal, we should just allow stealing to run rampant and abolish all laws restricting it.

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?

Sex is different from love. Love is willing the good of another before your own good, and can be and indeed should be felt for every person whom God has created. Sex is what turns love into romance, which is a gift which God has given us. Once again, I turn you to Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. It explains all of what I’ve been trying to say quite clearly, and explains in detail all of this.

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.

The point is that people are not supposed to rush into marriage. The Church teaches that marriage is a vocation which requires discernment, not a headlong rush for the sake of sex. I mean, really consider for yourself how good sex actually is. Truly consider it. Does the pleasure last longer than the act? Does it satisfy you? Does it fulfill you?

If told yourself yes, then you have no idea what could be. Within marriage, sex is not a burst of pleasure, it is part of a commitment, part of a Sacrament of love and unity. It is giving yourself completely to another, and having that person give themselves completely to you. It’s not that hurried tumble you’re probably doing in a car or dark room or something, that ends with a hurried goodbye and slinking off into the night.

God wants more for you, and more from you. As a Catholic, you should know this. We are called to be saints, to bring Christ into the world, not to wallow in self-satisfaction that societal or mystic moralities can give us. All of us have a vocation to holiness, which requires no discernment, and no matter what our particular discernment is (Marriage, Holy Orders, Religious Life, or Single Life) we are called to a primary vocation of love. When sex is outside of the Sacrament of Marriage, and not centered around Christ, it is not ordered to holiness, and cannot be. It is solely for pleasure, which is, in essence, using someone else’s body as a sex toy. It’s sick when you think about it.

Now, as to your comments about having sex outside of marriage helping the relationship… I am rather flabbergasted at your reasoning. You are basically proposing that you try out your perspective wives like cars or horses to see if they are “sexually compatible” (note how I am not quoting you here, simply using words which are not my own) with you. If sex would break the deal between you two, then you are not in love, and it is truly that simple. That is like saying that if you son had red hair, you would disown him. That is literally the single worst reason for not being with someone you love ever invented. So obviously, you did not love this individual.

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.

It does not do this, which you would be aware of had you read it by now. It provides huge amounts of philosophical reasoning, and furthermore the man had a degree in Theology and Philosophy, and over 80 or so years of experience in the faith. I’d say he knew what he was talking about. Please, look at this site if you will not read the book:

theologyofthebody.net/

As always, I will pray for you.

 

[minkymurph]

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:

In this sense I agree with you. By this reasoning, the act of being untruthful in the case of my colleague and I could be described as sin, and therefore evil. You hesitated to say this.

The reason I used the term untruthful, is due to the fact you were of the opinion being untruthful does not always constitute lying. If being untruthful does not always constitute lying, what does? Further to this, if being untruthful does not always constitute lying, then the question can be raised, ‘does carnal union outside marriage always constitute fornication.?’

As to your question, ‘when is sex outside marriage not fornication?’ Good question - one which I would say is the essence of the inquiry. Did Abraham commit fornication with his slave girl Hagar? Did Lot commit fornication with his daughters? Did King David commit fornication with his concubines? If they did, then they sinned, and if sin = evil, their acts were evil.

It could be argued Christianity had not come to us at this time. But God’s view of marriage, as Jesus stated, was instituted at the beginning. Abraham and Lot could be excused on the ground of culpability as they did not have the Law, but that does not change the definition of fornication. King David had the Law, and the Law stated, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Therefore, it could properly be argued he was more culpable.

The question then, is do we place the actions of Abraham, Lot and King David outside fornication, sin and evil, or do we place them within it? If we are willing to place them outside it, what would be our reasons to categorize fornication today, under every circumstance and every eventuality within it?

 

[JNdoum]

In this sense I agree with you. By this reasoning, the act of being untruthful in the case of my colleague and I could be described as sin, and therefore evil. You hesitated to say this.

The reason I used the term untruthful, is due to the fact you were of the opinion being untruthful does not always constitute lying. If being untruthful does not always constitute lying, what does? Further to this, if being untruthful does not always constitute lying, then the question can be raised, ‘does carnal union outside marriage always constitute fornication.?’

As to your question, ‘when is sex outside marriage not fornication?’ Good question - one which I would say is the essence of the inquiry. Did Abraham commit fornication with his slave girl Hagar? Did Lot commit fornication with his daughters? Did King David commit fornication with his concubines? If they did, then they sinned, and if sin = evil, their acts were evil.

It could be argued Christianity had not come to us at this time. But God’s view of marriage, as Jesus stated, was instituted at the beginning. Abraham and Lot could be excused on the ground of culpability as they did not have the Law, but that does not change the definition of fornication. King David had the Law, and the Law stated, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Therefore, it could properly be argued he was more culpable.

The question then, is do we place the actions of Abraham, Lot and King David outside fornication, sin and evil, or do we place them within it? If we are willing to place them outside it, what would be our reasons to categorize fornication today, under every circumstance and every eventuality within it?

As an observer of your commentary on lying, I’d like to note that lying is, at least in what I’ve gleaned from Catholic teaching, deliberately misleading someone from the truth. Not telling someone the truth is not lying, and may in fact be the prudent and proper thing to do if it would cause undue harm. However, I may be wrong in saying this.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

Your description is of course accurate, and on a black and white reading it is simple. Where I was coming from is if we are honest about it, there are thoughts words and actions that are a grave matter yet in certain circumstances we hesitate to label them ‘evil’ or even sin.

I won’t go over all it all again as I’ve already posted on this at great length. Suffice to say, I don’t think anyone would dispute the taking of a human life is a grave matter. Yet in some circumstances we are reluctant to label it as ‘evil’ or even sin. The point of my argument is it is arbitrary and disproportionate to be prepared to place something as grave as the taking of a human outside ‘evil’ or even sin in certain circumstances, in addition many other matters that can be properly be defined as ‘grave’ which on occasion we place outside ‘evil’ or even sin, yet be unwilling to apply the same principle to sexual sin.

As you properly state in your post, the person must also know it is a grave matter and makes the decision to do it anyway. The is the complicated part. I was reading an answer made by an apologist in relation to mortal sin, and she said something to the effect that we cannot know if the person fully understood it was a grave matter and fully consented. That is known only onto God. Now that is not exactly what the apologist said but that was the gist of it. In which case, I would say there are occasions of fornication when only God would know if it was mortal sin as two crucial elements to the act of mortal sin are unknown to us. In the case of murder these two elements can be established, particularly if the person tells you they intended to kill someone, were fully aware of the consequences and went ahead and done it anyway. In cases of manslaughter, on occasion it is much more difficult to establish these two elements. In which case, it is known only onto God if a mortal sin has been committed.

 

[minkymurph]

As an observer of your commentary on lying, I’d like to note that lying is, at least in what I’ve gleaned from Catholic teaching, deliberately misleading someone from the truth. Not telling someone the truth is not lying, and may in fact be the prudent and proper thing to do if it would cause undue harm. However, I may be wrong in saying this.

I would tend to agree with you, but as you say that view may be wrong. Perhaps others will comment on it.

 

[thewanderer]

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

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t follow. If marriage is, in fact a necessary condition for sex, then the fact that some people abuse marriage will not be able to change the necessity of marriage as a condition for sex.

Look, I’m not trying to attack you or someperson, I am honestly trying to understand why you think what you do and I just don’t get it. Thats why I’m trying to get you both to explain what you see as the meaning of sex and the meaning of marriage. It is obviously different than my nderstanding because the way I understand these things leads me directly to the conclusion that sex should be reserved for marriage. And like I said to someperson, this is not something that is simply based off of Church teaching. If I left the Church tomorow I would still think the same. And it isn’t because I just haven’t yet been tempted or anything, like I’ve also said, I am more than ready to be married to my boyfriend, but to be perfectly honest, I would feel a little betrayed if he actually tried to have sex with me before marriage, because he would be asking me to open myself up, become vulnerable, and give myself fully to him even though he hasn’t made an unconditional comitment. And this feeling of betrayel really would not disappear if I no longer believed in the Church because it simply follows from my understanding of sexuality and the comitment of marriage, which itself is not actually based off of Church teaching, but does happen to line up with what the Church teaches. Trust me, I am definately someone who thinks for themself, but I honestly don’t understand where you and someperson are coming from. The idea that so far makes most sense is that you see some of the importance of comitment and so recognize some of the reality of what is involved in sex when done right, but don’t see it all. I realize that this could be off base, and if so I apologize, but that is why I am asking you guys to explain more what you see as the meaning of sex and marriage. So that I can better understand where you are coming from.

 

[davidv]

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” is not fornication. I have a rabbi’s word on that one.

Didn’t say they were the same. Fornication is a violation of the command against adultery.

From the Catechism section:

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not commit adultery.
.
.
.
II. THE VOCATION TO CHASTITY
.
.
.

One finds this:

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.

And this

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

 

[davidv]

I agree with you totally on this. But I don’t agree on some of the teachings of the Church. There is no way I would have enough trust in one faith to “drink the kool aid”. I have this curse of “thinking for myself”

Whether you agree or does not make the teaching true or false.

When has the Catholic Church ever asked anyone to “drink the kool aid”?
Please keep your innuendos to yourself.

 

[davidv]

In this sense I agree with you. By this reasoning, the act of being untruthful in the case of my colleague and I could be described as sin, and therefore evil. You hesitated to say this.

The reason I used the term untruthful, is due to the fact you were of the opinion being untruthful does not always constitute lying. If being untruthful does not always constitute lying, what does? Further to this, if being untruthful does not always constitute lying, then the question can be raised, ‘does carnal union outside marriage always constitute fornication.?’

As to your question, ‘when is sex outside marriage not fornication?’ Good question - one which I would say is the essence of the inquiry. Did Abraham commit fornication with his slave girl Hagar? Did Lot commit fornication with his daughters? Did King David commit fornication with his concubines? If they did, then they sinned, and if sin = evil, their acts were evil.

I don’t see any examples here of any premarital sex that is not fornication.

I therefore conclude that all premarital sex is fornication.

It could be argued Christianity had not come to us at this time. But God’s view of marriage, as Jesus stated, was instituted at the beginning. Abraham and Lot could be excused on the ground of culpability as they did not have the Law, but that does not change the definition of fornication. King David had the Law, and the Law stated, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Therefore, it could properly be argued he was more culpable.

The question then, is do we place the actions of Abraham, Lot and King David outside fornication, sin and evil, or do we place them within it? If we are willing to place them outside it, what would be our reasons to categorize fornication today, under every circumstance and every eventuality within it?

Since there are no cases of premarital sex not being fornication, there is no basis for any exceptions today.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t follow. If marriage is, in fact a necessary condition for sex, then the fact that some people abuse marriage will not be able to change the necessity of marriage as a condition for sex.

Look, I’m not trying to attack you or someperson, I am honestly trying to understand why you think what you do and I just don’t get it. Thats why I’m trying to get you both to explain what you see as the meaning of sex and the meaning of marriage. It is obviously different than my nderstanding because the way I understand these things leads me directly to the conclusion that sex should be reserved for marriage. And like I said to someperson, this is not something that is simply based off of Church teaching. If I left the Church tomorow I would still think the same. And it isn’t because I just haven’t yet been tempted or anything, like I’ve also said, I am more than ready to be married to my boyfriend, but to be perfectly honest, I would feel a little betrayed if he actually tried to have sex with me before marriage, because he would be asking me to open myself up, become vulnerable, and give myself fully to him even though he hasn’t made an unconditional comitment. And this feeling of betrayel really would not disappear if I no longer believed in the Church because it simply follows from my understanding of sexuality and the comitment of marriage, which itself is not actually based off of Church teaching, but does happen to line up with what the Church teaches. Trust me, I am definately someone who thinks for themself, but I honestly don’t understand where you and someperson are coming from. The idea that so far makes most sense is that you see some of the importance of comitment and so recognize some of the reality of what is involved in sex when done right, but don’t see it all. I realize that this could be off base, and if so I apologize, but that is why I am asking you guys to explain more what you see as the meaning of sex and marriage. So that I can better understand where you are coming from.

If I may comment on your post.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t see any examples here of any premarital sex that is not fornication.

You may not see any examples of premarital sex, but are you also saying you would not consider any of these examples of sex with someone you are not married to?

Since there are no cases of premarital sex not being fornication, there is no basis for any exceptions today.

As it is likely Abraham did not intend to marry Hagar, Lot did not intend to marry both his daughters, and David did not intend to marry his concubines, I suppose it could be argued they are not examples of premarital sex. However, are you saying having sex with your daughter, slave girl or concubine in certain circumstances does not constitute sex outside of marriage?

 

[davidv]

You may not see any examples of premarital sex, but are you also saying you would not consider any of these examples of sex with someone you are not married to?

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

As it is likely Abraham did not intend to marry Hagar, Lot did not intend to marry both his daughters, and David did not intend to marry his concubines, I suppose it could be argued they are not examples of premarital sex. However, are you saying having sex with your daughter, slave girl or concubine in certain circumstances does not constitute sex outside of marriage?

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