-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the premarital sex permissible in a betrothal in a Catholic perspective?
- Thread starter chiara25
- Start date
Fornication is fornication, and it is a mortal sin if done in full knowledge of its sinfulness. I have never heard any half serious Catholic (yet alone a priest) claim that a mere intent to marry makes pre-martial sex permissible.
That's what the priest of my parish said too. It's amazing how Catholicism keeps -more or less, and with exceptions- its uniformity all over the world.
I'm more progressive.
The real sins are sexism, gender violence, casual sex, sex without love, promiscuity and infidelity.
The sex is very important for a couple: the sexual repression is damaging and harmful.
The sex must be seen as full and true gift in a serious story without taboos.
An engaged couple matures and grows through sex in view of marriage.
We must unite sexuality, love and spirituality.
Making love and praying together are essential in a Christian couple.
It is wrong to exclude the sex in an engagement just as it is wrong to found a story of love only on sex.
The real sins are sexism, gender violence, casual sex, sex without love, promiscuity and infidelity.
The sex is very important for a couple: the sexual repression is damaging and harmful.
The sex must be seen as full and true gift in a serious story without taboos.
An engaged couple matures and grows through sex in view of marriage.
We must unite sexuality, love and spirituality.
Making love and praying together are essential in a Christian couple.
It is wrong to exclude the sex in an engagement just as it is wrong to found a story of love only on sex.
Can any of you actuality point to any authoritative statement of the Church which at all implies that an engaged couple may have sexual relations?
It's not that you guys aren't entitled to your own views, but if you're going to address something as a 'Catholic perspective' then you ought to address it in line with what the Church actually teaches. Which is that pre-martial sex is always a grave matter.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
I see no clause that suggests any exceptions to this.
And indirectly related.
Emphasis mine. The intention to get married, no matter how strong does not mitigate the grave matter attached to fornication.
It's not that you guys aren't entitled to your own views, but if you're going to address something as a 'Catholic perspective' then you ought to address it in line with what the Church actually teaches. Which is that pre-martial sex is always a grave matter.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
I see no clause that suggests any exceptions to this.
And indirectly related.
Emphasis mine. The intention to get married, no matter how strong does not mitigate the grave matter attached to fornication.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have thought long and hard on this issue and I have discussed with theologians and priests: I believe that the abstinence before marriage is a rule obsolete.
The disagreement with the ordinary magisterium is permitted for serious reasons of conscience.
This rule must be radically reformulated: fifty years ago had its own rationality, today it is absurd.
The very broad dissent of the laity in matters of sexual morality shows it without any doubt.
The teaching is no longer neither credible nor realistic nor rational.
The current problems are the pornography and the casual sex, not the premarital sex.
Remember the medieval condemnation of the loan with interest that lasted until 1917..
The disagreement with the ordinary magisterium is permitted for serious reasons of conscience.
This rule must be radically reformulated: fifty years ago had its own rationality, today it is absurd.
The very broad dissent of the laity in matters of sexual morality shows it without any doubt.
The teaching is no longer neither credible nor realistic nor rational.
The current problems are the pornography and the casual sex, not the premarital sex.
Remember the medieval condemnation of the loan with interest that lasted until 1917..
Are the explicit words of Scripture also obsolete? 1 Corinthians 6:9
The problem is that your opinion is arbitrary. It is in direct opposition to Scripture and Church teaching. But everyone else is doing it is no justification before God.
Your augment is that the moral laxity of our society somehow justifies moral laxity. But the Church teaches that grave matter is grave matter, and to die unrepentant of mortal sin it is to lose salvation. (Which sadly, seems to be the state of most Catholics) What the laity believe is irrelevant, it's what God demands of us. You can disregard the Scriptures, you can disregard the Church and live by your own opinions. But then there comes a point where you must ask yourself, if you feel free to define your own morality, that your own views trump the Church and the inspired words of Scripture, can you coherently call yourself a Catholic?
It's no secret that the laity by in large ignore Church teaching concerning sexual matters. It's those laity who will face God when they die. As will we all; which is why I say it's your conscience. I cannot however hold sympathy for your views, which are in clear contradiction with the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not clear what he means Paul; probably prostitution.
The issue is however much deeper.
The scriptures are full of moral norms historically determined.
The authors of the biblical texts were influenced by their social and cultural context.
Marriage, sexuality, love are historical realities that change continuously.
It is insane to apply the same rules to totally different contexts.
The values are always the same (loyalty, commitment, fruitfulness, gift, love, authenticity) but they apply in different ways in diverse contexts.
The sexual revolution has changed everything and nothing is as before.
The sex has been divided from marriage and procreation.
The Church must dialogue with the social sciences, psychology and sexology.
It 's all to reinvent!
Today sexual morality is no longer credible.
The purpose of sexual morality is to promote the full flowering of the person.
We must accept this challenge; we must rethink a sexual morality that is truly effective and persuasive.
The sex must express care, gift, authenticity, generosity, spirituality, loyalty, relationship.
The sex is an extraordinary force that must be put at the service of true love.
The sex is so important to the growth of a couple that it can not be limited to marriage.
The ordinary magisterium is in a continuous development.
The Church has changed its position on the loan with interest, on democracy, on laicity, on women's emancipation, on colonialism, on the death penalty, on torture, on ecumenism, on inter-religious dialogue, on freedom of religion, on freedom of the press, on political pluralism, on the Latin Mass, on the Inquisition, on the role of the laity...
The change is possible.
The issue is however much deeper.
The scriptures are full of moral norms historically determined.
The authors of the biblical texts were influenced by their social and cultural context.
Marriage, sexuality, love are historical realities that change continuously.
It is insane to apply the same rules to totally different contexts.
The values are always the same (loyalty, commitment, fruitfulness, gift, love, authenticity) but they apply in different ways in diverse contexts.
The sexual revolution has changed everything and nothing is as before.
The sex has been divided from marriage and procreation.
The Church must dialogue with the social sciences, psychology and sexology.
It 's all to reinvent!
Today sexual morality is no longer credible.
The purpose of sexual morality is to promote the full flowering of the person.
We must accept this challenge; we must rethink a sexual morality that is truly effective and persuasive.
The sex must express care, gift, authenticity, generosity, spirituality, loyalty, relationship.
The sex is an extraordinary force that must be put at the service of true love.
The sex is so important to the growth of a couple that it can not be limited to marriage.
The ordinary magisterium is in a continuous development.
The Church has changed its position on the loan with interest, on democracy, on laicity, on women's emancipation, on colonialism, on the death penalty, on torture, on ecumenism, on inter-religious dialogue, on freedom of religion, on freedom of the press, on political pluralism, on the Latin Mass, on the Inquisition, on the role of the laity...
The change is possible.
Last edited:
Fornication is fornication. And it is prohibited in more areas than one. But who cares what Scripture says.
I'm sorry, this is going to go nowhere. This is meaningless drivel to justify a wishy-washy moral relativism which is utterly contrary to Catholicism. As I said, live how you wish, but stop pretending it's a Catholic perspective. It's your own.
I actually have to ask what was your purpose in creating this thread? Your question was not honest, you had no intention of accepting answers. You have the answers, you just don't like them. This is nothing more than a set up to pontificate your views.
Chastity is hard (as a single male I know it better than most) but mere difficulty isn't an excuse to rationalise away what is clearly and explicitly stated to be a sin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't fornication considered as scripturally wrong?______
At Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 Jesus did Not use the word adultery as scriptural grounds for divorce but sexual immorality. KJV fornication.
Sexual immorality comes from the Greek word Porneia. Porneia covers more than fornication but even includes having sex with an animal as scripturally wrong.
So, when Jesus talked about sexual immorality it was from the word Porneia which includes: fornication as wrong.
At what point do the two become joined as one but at marriage - Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6
How did you arrive at the definition of fornication ( porneia ) to mean prostitution ? - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Isn't the sin of fornication sex between unmarried people ?_________
Fornication is translated into English from the Greek word porneia. Porneia is also where we get the English words porn and pornography.
Porneia covers more than fornication ( pre-marital sex ), but all forms of unscriptural sex such as having sex with an animal would be wrong.
In that case, you need a better confessor. As Tlaloc said, having sex before marriage is both fornication and a mortal sin. If your priest is calling mortal sin permissible, you should strongly consider reporting him to his bishop so the bishop can straighten him out.
VitoOFMCap
Member
I spent some time thinking about the OP's post here. I see a few people who took a logical leap of conclusion regarding sin, but that's not what I see stated: "A couple can have sex if they want to fully engaged to marry." Here's a few things reasons why I'm disturbed by that:
1. That statement implies something that is contradictory to Church teaching, as people have already shown. However, if a priest is making this statement, than I have to assume 2 things: a. It's being made from a Revisionist point-of-view (meaning that it's not a blanket statement, but it it's a statement being made within a particular context), and b. there's a pastoral reason behind such an answer. Anyone in pastoral work will tell you that people are happy to tell you what you've done wrong more than what you've done right. So my default position is that there's a specific reason for your confessor would make such a statement (which I can only assume was made to you and not in a public venue).
2. The Synod on the Family has affected the pastoral relationship between pastors and couples in unique relationships, focused mostly on divorced, remarried, or couples in cohabitation. There is a virtue between the rigidity of the law and the blanket indulgence of "letting anything go." The goal is to work with these couples to help them transform their relationships to the sacramental nature of their union, by virtue of their baptism. Cardinal Kaspar's The Gospel of the Family is a good book to read on this. In short, how do we mercifully respond to family situations in a way that helps the family to embrace and witness the Christian life? From this hermeneutic, a pastor may make a statement similar to this, but to a specific person/couple, and after spending time getting to know the situation.
3. In spite of such a stance, statements similar to what you've offered should be considered "internal forum" and very much conditional. Even for me to better understand the context of such a statement would require me to ask about the setting in which you and your confessor were having this discussion - which is something I have no right to do. That does not mean that the statement is free of scrutiny. If you feel that you've been led astray in some area, it's your right as a Catholic to inquire about this statement...but it should be done with your confessor. Give him the opportunity to explain his answer.
If what you've said is a blanket statement regarding pre-marital sex, then there is serious cause for concern. But if this is something that was meant for your specific case, then perhaps you should ask him for clarification. There is a desire by the Church to be attentive to the needs of family situations, even from the bishops, however such cases are to be seen as particular and as a means to extend mercy, that the love of Christ might be shown, as with the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son.
I don't know if this offers any help for your specific situation, but questions like these are being asked at various levels of the Church.
La paz.
1. That statement implies something that is contradictory to Church teaching, as people have already shown. However, if a priest is making this statement, than I have to assume 2 things: a. It's being made from a Revisionist point-of-view (meaning that it's not a blanket statement, but it it's a statement being made within a particular context), and b. there's a pastoral reason behind such an answer. Anyone in pastoral work will tell you that people are happy to tell you what you've done wrong more than what you've done right. So my default position is that there's a specific reason for your confessor would make such a statement (which I can only assume was made to you and not in a public venue).
2. The Synod on the Family has affected the pastoral relationship between pastors and couples in unique relationships, focused mostly on divorced, remarried, or couples in cohabitation. There is a virtue between the rigidity of the law and the blanket indulgence of "letting anything go." The goal is to work with these couples to help them transform their relationships to the sacramental nature of their union, by virtue of their baptism. Cardinal Kaspar's The Gospel of the Family is a good book to read on this. In short, how do we mercifully respond to family situations in a way that helps the family to embrace and witness the Christian life? From this hermeneutic, a pastor may make a statement similar to this, but to a specific person/couple, and after spending time getting to know the situation.
3. In spite of such a stance, statements similar to what you've offered should be considered "internal forum" and very much conditional. Even for me to better understand the context of such a statement would require me to ask about the setting in which you and your confessor were having this discussion - which is something I have no right to do. That does not mean that the statement is free of scrutiny. If you feel that you've been led astray in some area, it's your right as a Catholic to inquire about this statement...but it should be done with your confessor. Give him the opportunity to explain his answer.
If what you've said is a blanket statement regarding pre-marital sex, then there is serious cause for concern. But if this is something that was meant for your specific case, then perhaps you should ask him for clarification. There is a desire by the Church to be attentive to the needs of family situations, even from the bishops, however such cases are to be seen as particular and as a means to extend mercy, that the love of Christ might be shown, as with the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son.
I don't know if this offers any help for your specific situation, but questions like these are being asked at various levels of the Church.
La paz.
If 'always gravely sinful', then in the church is fornication an excommunication offence - 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
I remember back in the 60's a Catholic father told his son who attended Catholic school that it was fine with him if his son got a girl pregnant before marriage because then he would be assured of having a grandchild.
The son did get his girlfriend pregnant before marriage and No church action was taken.
They had a church wedding.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
That is incorrect. If all grave sins resulted in excommunication then people would be getting excommunicated left and right. It's much harder to get excommunicated than you think. Here are some links that can help you understand this better:
Getting excommunicated is much harder than you think – CatholicHerald.co.uk
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-excommunication/
In Scripture to me sin is: either willfull sin or not, intentional sin or not, premeditated sin or not, by accident or not.
It is the ' on-purpose practice ' of sin, to me, that is grave or gravely committed.
To intentionally commit fornication might or can lead to a practice of fornication.
To be unrepentant is a cause for excommunication according to 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Hebrews 10:26
So, what are your thoughts about the ^ above ^ verses.
Was that father 'scripturally right' in deliberately instructing his son to get a girl pregnant before marriage ?
obry
Member
Except for the father's advice, it's a story that is typical of RC countries.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, this can be dealt with in different ways. Going back a couple thousand years ago, the betrothal was actually considered the formal commitment, whereas the wedding ceremony itself was both the celebration of that commitment plus the "sealing of the deal" through sexual intercourse. The period in-between was considered to be the adjustment period. Nowadays, in western society, we really don't see it the exact same way.
Secondly, fornication is not the same as adultery, the latter of which is considered to be a very serious sin. In the case of the former, the question begs who is being harmed? If it's entirely consensual and both are aware of the dangers and are willing to deal with the consequences, plus are considering this to be a permanent commitment, then one can make the argument that it may be OK. To put it another way, the wedding is just a ceremony, whereas a dedication to a permanent commitment is far more important in this context.
Finally, there's a statement acceptable within the Church of "Let your informed conscience be your guide", namely that it is the couple that has to make the ultimate decision on this because they're the ones that have to deal with the consequences.