why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin.

[ejp123]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

So long as one party is a male, the other a female, and both have functional sex organs, they are sexually compatible. Unlike their often frivolous and short lived secular counterparts, Catholic marriages are not founded upon the other's sexual performance. Overemphasis on one's personal pleasure is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Marriage is about commitment, support, family, faith, and self giving. That last part is key. A marriage will not last if either party is focused on what they're getting out of it.

I don't agree. This idea reduces the act into something purely mechanical. Sexual compatibility is not just about the physical parts working.

[CompSciGuy]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

So long as one party is a male, the other a female, and both have functional sex organs, they are sexually compatible. Unlike their often frivolous and short lived secular counterparts, Catholic marriages are not founded upon the other's sexual performance. Overemphasis on one's personal pleasure is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Marriage is about commitment, support, family, faith, and self giving. That last part is key. A marriage will not last if either party is focused on what they're getting out of it.

This is beautiful and the reason why Catholic teaching regarding sex and marriage is so much better than secular society's teaching! Catholic marriage is based on trust, acceptance and self-sacrifice, while on the other hand so many people in our world today think that this trust and commitment is only to last as long as the other person is able to please them. A relationship, including a sexual one, is something that can be worked toward.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by ejp123

I don't agree. This idea reduces the act into something purely mechanical. Sexual compatibility is not just about the physical parts working.

Yes, it is. If the ability to give you mind blowing orgasms (forgive my bluntness) is anywhere on your list of the most important criteria for a prospective spouse, you are not ready to get married.

Actually, I would say it's you who is reducing it to something mechanical. You are reducing the act to a quantifiable amount of physical pleasure. And worse is that it's a completely selfish quantification at that. On the contrary, by acknowledging the mechanical nature of the act and physiological consequences (intercourse and pleasure, namely), one can put them in their proper priority and context in the greater scheme of marriage, which includes all those things I mentioned previously. This is the truly spiritual view of sexuality. When viewed in its proper place, in subservience to those higher elements of marriage, the pinnacle of which is self giving and sacrifice, it becomes obvious that true love should be willing to SACRIFICE its own pleasure for the good of the other. Love gives without expecting in return. It is better to give than to receive. Love does not seek reward. If you only love someone for the pleasure they give you, then you do not love them. You love your own pleasure; and you have reduced the person into a mechanism towards that end.

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by davidv

This is not in accord with Catholic moral teaching which states that an inherently evil act (e.g., fornication) cannot become moral because of a moral intention or moral circumstance.

This conclusion is not supported by Church teaching.

Catholic teaching also states the elements of grave matter, full knowledge and full consent must be present in order for a mortal sin to be committed. If these elements are not present, it would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching to state categorically a mortal sin has been committed. An act may be evil, but that does not in itself mean a person engaged in the act commits mortal sin purely because the act itself is evil as the essential elements stipulated by the Church are not present.

Originally Posted by davidv

The lack consent does not diminish the evil of the act. It only diminishes the culpability.

Absolutely. Lack of consent does not diminish the evil of the act of rape or incest. But what is in question is does the victim commit mortal sin? If in the case of rape or incest lack of consent only diminishes culpability, does that mean the victim has committed mortal sin? Or is it at least possible they may not have?

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by davidv

This is not in accord with Catholic moral teaching which states that an inherently evil act (e.g., fornication) cannot become moral because of a moral intention or moral circumstance.

This conclusion is not supported by Church teaching.

I would just like to add, it may be the case the Church teaches Abraham and Hagar committed mortal sin. In which case, it can be argued my conclusions are not supported by Church teaching. However, if the Church does not teach this, it cannot be stated categorically this conclusion in not supported by Church teaching.

There is no doubt as to the teaching of the Church in relation to David's act of adultery. The Church is perfectly clear on that. Therefore, the question is, are they equally as clear concerning Abraham's relations with Hagar, and does the Church teach they committed mortal sin?

[Corki]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

I would just like to add, it may be the case the Church teaches Abraham and Hagar committed mortal sin. In which case, it can be argued my conclusions are not supported by Church teaching. However, if the Church does not teach this, it cannot be stated categorically this conclusion in not supported by Church teaching.

There is no doubt as to the teaching of the Church in relation to David's act of adultery. The Church is perfectly clear on that. Therefore, the question is, are they equally as clear concerning Abraham's relations with Hagar, and does the Church teach they committed mortal sin?

Yes. And furthermore, Abraham's relations with Hagar were a sign of his lack of faith in God's promise, compounding the sin.

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by Corki

Yes. And furthermore, Abraham's relations with Hagar were a sign of his lack of faith in God's promise, compounding the sin.

Your reply is problematic in that it is not consistent with Aquinas' reasoning in Summa Theologica Art.2 reply to objection 3.

Here is the link.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article6

In short, Aquinas reasons Abraham did not go to his handmaiden with the purpose of fornication, and states categorically he did not sin. (Reply to objection 2) As far as I understand it, he further reasons it was not fornication as a form of matrimony existed. Although in fairness, it may the case that the Church today would reject this proposition.

Concerning his reasoning in relation to rape, (I know you did not comment on this. The reason I mention it is due to the fact Aquinas further deals with this topic which can be found at the same link and it was discussed) he does not categorically state the victim has not committed mortal sin, but I would argue he infers it as a consequence of the manner in which he reasons on the subject. Aquinas deals solely with violator, and under the Law of Israel, no guilt was attributed to a woman if she was violated and she faced no penalty. To attribute guilt and introduce a penalty (that of mortal sin on the part of the victim) at a later stage would be in excess of what was demanded under the Law of Israel.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

Your reply is problematic in that it is not consistent with Aquinas' reasoning in Summa Theologica Art.2 reply to objection 3.

Here is the link.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article6

In short, Aquinas reasons Abraham did not go to his handmaiden with the purpose of fornication, and states categorically he did not sin. (Reply to objection 2) As far as I understand it, he further reasons it was not fornication as a form of matrimony existed. Although in fairness, it may the case that the Church today would reject this proposition.

Thanks; my Thomistics are weak. I see where you are going though. In the time of Abraham, it was permitted to have relations with a servant in the household. In the time of David, the "extra" wives weren't the problem, it was going after the wife of another man.

As such, though, neither of those OT examples is fornication as defined in the OP.

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by Corki

Thanks; my Thomistics are weak. I see where you are going though. In the time of Abraham, it was permitted to have relations with a servant in the household. In the time of David, the "extra" wives weren't the problem, it was going after the wife of another man.

As such, though, neither of those OT examples is fornication as defined in the OP.

I wouldn't say mine were great either, but I have a particular interest in Aquinas.

You are absolutely right in that neither of these examples in the OT are examples of fornication as defined the OP. What put me onto this, was my argument centered not on fornication is never a mortal sin, but rather not under every circumstance and under every eventuality, and it would be unjust to label the act 'evil' under every circumstance and every eventuality.

It's interesting to note Aquinas reasons Abraham and Hagar did not commit fornication. The reason I find this interesting is due to the fact it has been proposed by some posters sex with someone you are not married to is always fornication, and that is black and white. Based on what Aquinas states, I'm not so sure it is black and white.

Forgive the long post, but what do think of this situation? Sadly, I was unable to marry in Church. The reason being my parents would have freaked out had we married in my my in-laws church, and his parents would have freaked out had we married my parents church.
At the time, neither of us attended a church or were affiliated with any denomination other than through our parents. My parents are dead now, but my in-laws are still alive, and they wouldn't even come to my kids baptism 'cos it wasn't in their church. We went on holiday together when we were engaged, and met a German guy in Austria who turned out to be a lay preacher. He said he could marry us, but he had to marry us in Germany. We were tempted to go to Germany, get married, and come home and tell our parents they could stop agonizing over where we were going to married. A friend of mine said we should have, but not told our parents and had a laugh on our anniversary every year.

Lots of people in our situation lived together not because they didn't want to marry, they did, but at that time it could actually be quite dangerous for people of different religions to marry, in fact you could have been killed. Some people left the country and went to Scotland or England to marry, and many peoples families disowned them. However, If they lived together and didn't marry it was tolerated to a greater extent. When I was going out with my husband, he had a bullet taped to his front door. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I had a good rapport with a couple of characters who were members of the local mafia, and they put a stop to things. When things cooled down, lots of them married at the earliest opportunity. Many of them had a very quiet affair as it was the marriage itself that meant so much to them, and they could at last do so openly and safely.

This is why I was interested in what Aquinas had to say in that, if I understand it correctly, a matrimonial arrangement of some sort existed. Perhaps the same could be said for the couples I mentioned above? I know the OP was not posing a scenario such as this, but this is what led me down the line of arguments I have presented, in that categorizing the actions of the couples I mentioned above as 'fornication,' and labeling it 'sin' and 'evil' seems so cruel. I suppose that's one of reasons I feel strongly about the fact marriage has become so devalued, because I know people who were disowned by their family and risk their lives to marry. Still, I can't expect anyone now to fully appreciate that, and in sense I'm glad they don't.

On a final note, I was disappointed to find out I don't need to convalidate my marriage, it would have given me the perfect excuse for the wedding I would have liked but couldn't have. Sometimes I think we should have got married in Germany, it would have quite romantic.

[ejp123]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Yes, it is. If the ability to give you mind blowing orgasms (forgive my bluntness) is anywhere on your list of the most important criteria for a prospective spouse, you are not ready to get married.

Actually, I would say it's you who is reducing it to something mechanical. You are reducing the act to a quantifiable amount of physical pleasure. And worse is that it's a completely selfish quantification at that. On the contrary, by acknowledging the mechanical nature of the act and physiological consequences (intercourse and pleasure, namely), one can put them in their proper priority and context in the greater scheme of marriage, which includes all those things I mentioned previously. This is the truly spiritual view of sexuality. When viewed in its proper place, in subservience to those higher elements of marriage, the pinnacle of which is self giving and sacrifice, it becomes obvious that true love should be willing to SACRIFICE its own pleasure for the good of the other. Love gives without expecting in return. It is better to give than to receive. Love does not seek reward. If you only love someone for the pleasure they give you, then you do not love them. You love your own pleasure; and you have reduced the person into a mechanism towards that end.

I agree with the virtues associated with sex. The way that particular comment was worded was sounding like we just need the working parts for compatibility. That to me is reducing it to mechanical action. It says to me, we don't need the virtues, it's just a deed, the parts work. which is not the case. and by the way get rid of the "you" statements, it is very off-putting. and never did i say that sex amounts to mind blowing orgasms and pleasure. Don't assume.

[loro]

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?

But please consider, that you probably did offend your future wife. You probably did offend this girl's future husband. Even if you think you didn't offend yourself or this girl - this event might have an impact on your future marriage. And the marriage of this girl. And thank God this girl didn't get pregnant at that stage. This would cause a lot of harm to many people, the child including.

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?

I'm sure you don't mean that. If you do - imagine your wife had sex with some other man and then told you: "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?" what would you say?

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by loro

But please consider, that you probably did offend your future wife. You probably did offend this girl's future husband. Even if you think you didn't offend yourself or this girl - this event might have an impact on your future marriage. And the marriage of this girl. And thank God this girl didn't get pregnant at that stage. This would cause a lot of harm to many people, the child including.

Thank you. This cuts right to the heart of the matter. Completely secular science has shown that having sex with multiple partners, even if it's just one before marriage, tends to cumulatively weaken the bonds of any subsequent relationships. The Church's teaching in regards to morals has always been borne out by cold, hard science. Not to mention that, yes, a faithful wife would be completely justified in feeling hurt that she was not important enough to her husband for him to save such a beautiful gift only for her, and vice versa.

To the OP, if you think having sex "makes you a man," you have a very distorted and sad view of what it means to be a man. "You are thinking as the world thinks, not as God thinks." And lest you think I'm just some self-righteous holy roller, I'll confess that I am not a virgin, nor have I ever been married. But you won't catch me trying to justify the wrongs I have done in my life, and fornication is wrong. Whether you intend it to or not, it does damage to you and your partner and both of your future spouses, should you ever get married.

[Sister Terese]

"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?"

"The day I became a man?" Sex doesn't make you a man. Sex doesn't make a woman either. Maturity comes to each one of us as we, hopefully, grow in virtue.

[Faithdancer]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Thank you. This cuts right to the heart of the matter. Completely secular science has shown that having sex with multiple partners, even if it's just one before marriage, tends to cumulatively weaken the bonds of any subsequent relationships. The Church's teaching in regards to morals has always been borne out by cold, hard science. Not to mention that, yes, a faithful wife would be completely justified in feeling hurt that she was not important enough to her husband for him to save such a beautiful gift only for her, and vice versa.

To the OP, if you think having sex "makes you a man," you have a very distorted and sad view of what it means to be a man. "You are thinking as the world thinks, not as God thinks." And lest you think I'm just some self-righteous holy roller, I'll confess that I am not a virgin, nor have I ever been married. But you won't catch me trying to justify the wrongs I have done in my life, and fornication is wrong. Whether you intend it to or not, it does damage to you and your partner and both of your future spouses, should you ever get married.

Sorry to have just joined this dialogue. I must say, the original post has generated a great deal of "ink" here! I think that from the responses I've read everyone has done a great job of trying to gently correct the grave errors of reasoning of the OP. I can only agree that fornication is a grave sin, there is no justification for it, and any belief system that melds Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, etc. etc. with Roman Catholic Christianity is heresy, plain and simple.

[minkymurph]

In all the deliberation, debate, inquiry and opinions that have been expressed in this thread, I have now come to a conclusion on where I would stand on the matter.

To the OP, I wasn't sure at the start, but now I would say yes, fornication is always a mortal sin. The reason I would say this is because the act of fornication always involves using someone else's body for sexual gratification and nothing more.

Having sex with someone in order to establish if they are the 'one' is a very flawed view. I have opinions on that, so have others.

However, based on what Aquinas reasons in Summa Theologica in relation to Abraham and Hagar - I provided the link in a previous post - sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not formally married does not necessarily constitute fornication. As I understand it, based on what Aquinas reasons, fornication is the act of engaging in sexual intercourse for no other reason than gratifying oneself physically. If two people who are not formally married engage in sexual intercourse for another reason, such as procreation as in the case of Abraham and Hagar, then it does not necessarily constitute fornication.

Of course all this may need a little refinement and adjustment.