why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP's inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the 'perfect' way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of 'it's wrong.' I say that because if something is 'wrong,' it's not simply a case of 'it's just wrong' but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category. However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

The problem is that the way we are built a loving, intimate relationship as you describe is meant to be permanent. Why are people so torn up over break-ups? because they have been building the kind of relationship that is supposed to be permanant, a relationships without any 'ifs'. Of course, not every marriage succeeds, married people still break up all the time, but the point is that if you two truly love each other the correct way you would want to make it a permanant commitment, ie, get married, before having relations. Sure, its possible for people to be truly comitted to each other without actually being married, such as some engaged couples, but if they are planning on getting married presumably they recognize the importance of actually making an official commitment to each other in this way. To be quite honest, I really don't understand the line of thinking that says, "well, we love each other, so why wait for marriage?". I want a comitment from the person I am with, I want a mutual, permanent comitment before I am willing to become so vulnerable as to give myself entirely to them. I don't understand why in the world people would be willing to open themselves up so completely to another without this kind of commitment.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP's inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

No, I don't think that's a fair conclusion. If both are gravely sinful then the same conditions apply (knowledge and consent). Fornication for a sane person with even basic catechesis is always going to be a mortal sin. Adultery is always going to be a mortal sin. The subjective elements might mitigate culpability but that's something to be discussed with his confessor. You can't pre-plan diminshed culpability.

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the 'perfect' way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of 'it's wrong.' I say that because if something is 'wrong,' it's not simply a case of 'it's just wrong' but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Well both activities fall short and both evidence a failure to love as God loves. Fornication is wrong because it is not only a misguided expression of carnal love but because it cheapens the sexual expression within the bounds of marriage and also distorts the Sacrament. The only thing different is the lack of betrayal.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category.

My comment had nothing to do with inclination to care for the child. Purposefully denying the child the right to be born into a married family is seriously gravely sinful.

However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

Unless the person has diminished capacity or is forced, it will be.

[bbentrup]

To the OP: What was the original sin? Adam and Eve's disobedience (possibly motivated by the sin of pride). All they did was eat the apple, and yet the consequences were devastating.

You have heard from the commandments, from Jesus, from the Magisterium that fornication is evil. Even if the proscription had no basis in logic whatsoever, it would be your duty to obey your Creator. The servant is not greater than the master - you cannot say you can understand fully God's reason for his ban, so obey the ban and trust in him, who is all-loving. Converting to this mindset, try to figure out if there is good reason for the ban (hint: lots of good reasons listed in this thread). Even if you find none, still obey in humility. Wisdom often starts with obedience to Mother Church!

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by Irishgal49

The larger the caps, the louder your voice, the bright color and caps say to me you are threatened, insecure, and freaking out. This is a discussion. You will not die if you do not convince someone of your point. Relax, OK?

No, I will die regardless. I appreciate your psychoanalysis, but I'm afraid it's a little off the mark. I was not "freaking out", I'm really a notoriously, some might even say freakishly, calm person. I was only trying to catch the OP's attention, as I felt that the conversation was devolving into so much legalistic theology that was not benefitting the OP at all and ignoring the simple common sense that underlies this whole issue. I felt I had a perspective that might better cut through the cloud if his misconception which he should hear. A feeling which I think was affirmed by the fact that the OP, for the first time I've seen in this thread, conceded my point. The big, bright letters were just a means to the end of catching his attention, not a nervous breakdown.

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

The problem is that the way we are built a loving, intimate relationship as you describe is meant to be permanent. Why are people so torn up over break-ups? because they have been building the kind of relationship that is supposed to be permanant, a relationships without any 'ifs'. Of course, not every marriage succeeds, married people still break up all the time, but the point is that if you two truly love each other the correct way you would want to make it a permanant commitment, ie, get married, before having relations. Sure, its possible for people to be truly comitted to each other without actually being married, such as some engaged couples, but if they are planning on getting married presumably they recognize the importance of actually making an official commitment to each other in this way. To be quite honest, I really don't understand the line of thinking that says, "well, we love each other, so why wait for marriage?". I want a comitment from the person I am with, I want a mutual, permanent comitment before I am willing to become so vulnerable as to give myself entirely to them. I don't understand why in the world people would be willing to open themselves up so completely to another without this kind of commitment.

It's true they are building a relationship, and any relationship requires commitment.

I struggle to understand why some people live together for years, buy a home together, have children, yet don't get married. One thing bamboozles me is people who do all this, in addition to going on foreign holidays every year, yet claim they can't afford to get married.

There are people who simply just don't think it's necessary because of their view of what marriage means, and the fact they are not religious, in that they don't think it's necessary for either the State or a Church to sanction their relationship. In addition, many people who live together are legally entitled to the same benefits as married couples. They more or less are viewed a married by the State, and they see marriage as little more than a piece of paper.

[minkymurph]

Originally Posted by Corki

No, I don't think that's a fair conclusion. If both are gravely sinful then the same conditions apply (knowledge and consent). Fornication for a sane person with even basic catechesis is always going to be a mortal sin. Adultery is always going to be a mortal sin. The subjective elements might mitigate culpability but that's something to be discussed with his confessor. You can't pre-plan diminshed culpability.

No, but if a lesser degree of culpability exists, is it possible a venial rather than a mortal sin has been committed?

Originally Posted by Corki

Well both activities fall short and both evidence a failure to love as God loves. Fornication is wrong because it is not only a misguided expression of carnal love but because it cheapens the sexual expression within the bounds of marriage and also distorts the Sacrament. The only thing different is the lack of betrayal.

I can see where your coming from in relation to sacramentality. What if a person is not Catholic and doesn't believe marriage is a sacrament? Are they less culpable?

Originally Posted by Corki

My comment had nothing to do with inclination to care for the child. Purposefully denying the child the right to be born into a married family is seriously gravely sinful.

No it didn't, and I take your point about purposefully denying a child the right to be born within marriage. What I was getting at is I would see a difference between a couple who are prepared to commit to raising a child together if that happens, and a couple who are not.

Originally Posted by Corki

Unless the person has diminished capacity or is forced, it will be.

That may take us into a discussion on what may constitute diminished responsibility. But may we shouldn't go there.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

No, but if a lesser degree of culpability exists, is it possible a venial rather than a mortal sin has been committed?

No, diminished culpability doesn't turn a mortal sin into a venial one. The three conditions are what matter. The extra circumstances are more about the resulting spiritual effect.

I can see where your coming from in relation to sacramentality. What if a person is not Catholic and doesn't believe marriage is a sacrament? Are they less culpable?

Maybe. But it's not so much whether they believe in the Sacrament. But a person who does not have a faith tradition about marriage may know have the knowledge criterial for mortal sin fulfilled. In THAT case, it would be venial because one of the three conditions would be missing.

No it didn't, and I take your point about purposefully denying a child the right to be born within marriage. What I was getting at is I would see a difference between a couple who are prepared to commit to raising a child together if that happens, and a couple who are not.

Yes, however, I would say that someone who shirks his/her committment is committing another sin and it doesn't matter if that committment was initiated through fornication or marriage.

That may take us into a discussion on what may constitute diminished responsibility. But may we shouldn't go there.

Good idea!

[AdamPeter]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

No, I will die regardless. I appreciate your psychoanalysis, but I'm afraid it's a little off the mark. I was not "freaking out", I'm really a notoriously, some might even say freakishly, calm person. I was only trying to catch the OP's attention, as I felt that the conversation was devolving into so much legalistic theology that was not benefitting the OP at all and ignoring the simple common sense that underlies this whole issue. I felt I had a perspective that might better cut through the cloud if his misconception which he should hear. A feeling which I think was affirmed by the fact that the OP, for the first time I've seen in this thread, conceded my point. The big, bright letters were just a means to the end of catching his attention, not a nervous breakdown.

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by Irishgal49

I honestly have never seen any valid detailed explanation of sex outside of marriage being a sin other than the church saying it. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I was married to a Jewish man and they told us flat out. No sin if you have sex, only if you commit adultery.

i agree.

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by minkymurph

In line with this reasoning, and in line with the OP's inquiry as to whether fornication is mortal sin, could it be stated there are both objective and subjective elements involved in relation to mortal sin? Could it further be concluded that there are occasions when fornication may be either venial or mortal, and adultery always mortal due to the fact it involves betrayal, breaking an oath and a commandment, and distorts the sacramental nature of marriage?

I would propose this idea as engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage may not be altogether the 'perfect' way to express carnal love, depending on the circumstances of course which we have discussed. As far as I understand it, an element of sin is failing to love in the way God loves, and not simply as case of 'it's wrong.' I say that because if something is 'wrong,' it's not simply a case of 'it's just wrong' but there are reasons why it is wrong. Adultery falls short of loving in the way God loves by a greater margin than other forms of sexual activity.

Certainly I would say engaging in sexual activity where there is no consideration for the other person or any inclination to care for a child that may result from that activity would fall into the mortal category. However, I can understand why the OP may inquire as to whether fornication should be considered mortal sin on every occasion and in every circumstance as it may not be.

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called "objectively evil". its just two people expressing physical intimacy.
i just dont see where the "grave evil" is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.
with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or "friends with benefits" in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by someperson555

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called "objectively evil". its just two people expressing physical intimacy.
(Snip)

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.

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by Sister Terese

I believe that you are sincere in your questions. That being said, I would invite you to look at the "fruits" of "simple fornication in a relationship with good friends". Let's look at them: abortion, (even partial-birth abortions!), wounded souls from destructive casual sexual encounters, STDs (herpes, clamydia, HIV increasing exponentially) artificial birth control, rampant homosexuality ("same-sex marriages??), divorce, destroyed families--especially the children, unwed mothers, teenagers having babies, and the list goes on. How could anyone consider this to be healthy? God meant for sex to be pleasurable, but this is reserved only for married couples. This is a privilege. Despite the claims of the intelligensia we are not 98% chimpanzees! There is a whole other 2% unaccounted for--at least scientifically. But, in genetics that is a monumental difference.

If you are a "catholic through and through, you would be better served engaging in a good, solid Catholic moral theology or Catholic theology class. Ask a good priest to recommend one to you. There are some excellent books written by very CATHOLIC authors who have written many books on moral theology. Try also reading some of the papal encyclicals on human life (Humanae Vita), and others.

while i cant argue with that, since i dont support the "sexual revolution".
however sexual repression has also had disasterous effects. just look at the middle east countries, women cant even show their ankles without being called whores, it was the same in america 200 years ago. and in the early times of the church some men who were having nocturnal emissions were denied communion. can you justify that in any way? its exactly this neurotic attitude towards sex that caused much suffering in the past. therefore we cant blame the sexual revolution, because honestly, what did you expect? i agree that its not really much better now since people basically revert back to the stage of the animal by being driven by their passions.
we are not animals, but we are not angels either! we have a physical body and physical desires.

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

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.

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.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by someperson555

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called "objectively evil". its just two people expressing physical intimacy. i just dont see where the "grave evil" is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.

The problem is that if that final commitment has not been made, they are giving themselves totally to someone who may or may not be the person they should be giving that to. Sex forms strong bonds and leaves lasting marks that carry over into marriage. The statistics support church teaching: those couples who wait until they're married to have sex have a much lower divorce rate. Those who follow entirely the Church's teaching, particularly on the issue of contraception, have the lowest divorce rate of all: somewhere around 1%. Compare that to the over 60% rate of divorce of the average marriage. Sex is not necessary to form a deep connection. Again, you're rationalizing your lusts.

God gave us the Church to hold onto and teach the truths that our disordered minds cannot find on our own. Your mind, like all of ours, is clouded by sin and subject to temptation. Remember the serpent in the garden? "Oh, it's not sinful. The Church just wants to deprive you and repress you." Lies. If you trust Jesus, why do you not trust His promise to protect his Church and guide it into the fullness of truth?

with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or "friends with benefits" in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

It is a sin because you are not to give it to anyone until you have found that special person, and once you have done so, you should be married. Read the research. Having sex with multiple partners, or even just with your intended betrothed, before marriage greatly reduces the strength of the marital bond and makes divorce much more likely. Sex is not a test drive. Once you've taken it out on the road, you can't bring it back to the dealership.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by someperson555

all im saying is that the issue is not that clear cut. i dont believe that fornication can be called "objectively evil". its just two people expressing physical intimacy.
i just dont see where the "grave evil" is when two lovers express their affection to one another physically. romance is something spontaneous, this is why sex is so important between a boyfriend or girlfriend, its difficult to form a deep connection when youre basically keeping eachother at an arms length everytime you see eachother.

Since when does not having sex mean you keep each other at arms length??? I'm sorry, but I kind of take offense at what you are saying here. You are claiming that a couple is somehow not being affectionate if they don't have sex. If you will note my first post in this thread you will see that I am currently in a serious relationship, without sex. Clearly me and my boyfriend have no way of showing affection to one another because we always hold each other at arms length. Yes, clearly there is no way to show affection to ones boyfriend unless you guys are having sex.

with that being said, i think fornication isnt as serious if you are truly in search of that one special person who you want to one day marry.
this is different than just casual sex or "friends with benefits" in which case yes, fornication is a mortal sin.
but if its between two lovers who are looking for a potential lifetime partner, perhaps its not a grave sin in that case.

Again, I have serious issues with this. So you think so little of your gift of self in sex that you're wiling to give yourself away to anyone who just might possibly be the person who is willing to commit to you unconditionally. No, I should probably take that back, that is possibly a little unfair, you have already shown that you just simply don't understand what sex is actually supposed to be like, so it really is more likely that you just don't realize the kind of statement would say by having sex with someone who has not yet made an unconditional comitment to you. Like I've said before, I just don't get it. I just simply do not understand why people are willing to give themselves away so cheaply, why they don't realize that they have such dignity that they deserve the context of an unconditional relationship for their gift of self. I just truly do not understand.