Are You a Fornication-Denier?

[Michie]

Last week, X (formerly Twitter) gave me this pearl of wisdom:

The implication is that [bad thing] is not a big deal, so why does the Church remain so hung up on it? And we can refine this complaint in an age where sexual continence is under attack even at the highest ecclesiastical levels: “Why are those mean old fun-hating conservatives so hung up on it?”

Let’s clear a few things up. First, the loathsome term premarital sex. How can we be so confident as to declare this sex “pre-marital,” preceding marriage? “Extra-marital” might be more accurate, though that is a euphemism for something else, now euphemized even harder as “irregular circumstances” or, worse, “an irregular marriage.” So the classic term, fornication, seems most sensible. It’s still called that today, but no one wants to admit it, nor that it is a mortal sin—meaning the sort of thing that will send unrepentant and fully-knowing practitioners to hell. I suppose the Church is still “in denial about” it in that way, albeit quietly and with some embarrassment.

Next, “denial.” Is anyone really in denial that the vast mass of Americans of marriageable age are fornicating? At the very least, every television show and movie and elementary-school curriculum throws it at us daily. Even C.S. Lewis, a towering icon of “mean old conservative” Catholics, declared to his 1940s-ish “conservative” 88-percent-fornicating readership that “the sins of the flesh . . . are the least bad of all sins.” Tell that to Sr. Lucia, Clive—but suffice it to say that I’m not sure anyone’s been in denial about the prevalence of fornication for a long, long time.

Continued below.

Are You a Fornication-Denier?

According to "polls," lots of Catholics have premarital sex, and they always have. Does this mean the Church is "in denial" about it being wrong?

www.catholic.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Last week, X (formerly Twitter) gave me this pearl of wisdom:

The implication is that [bad thing] is not a big deal, so why does the Church remain so hung up on it? And we can refine this complaint in an age where sexual continence is under attack even at the highest ecclesiastical levels: “Why are those mean old fun-hating conservatives so hung up on it?”

Let’s clear a few things up. First, the loathsome term premarital sex. How can we be so confident as to declare this sex “pre-marital,” preceding marriage? “Extra-marital” might be more accurate, though that is a euphemism for something else, now euphemized even harder as “irregular circumstances” or, worse, “an irregular marriage.” So the classic term, fornication, seems most sensible. It’s still called that today, but no one wants to admit it, nor that it is a mortal sin—meaning the sort of thing that will send unrepentant and fully-knowing practitioners to hell. I suppose the Church is still “in denial about” it in that way, albeit quietly and with some embarrassment.

Next, “denial.” Is anyone really in denial that the vast mass of Americans of marriageable age are fornicating? At the very least, every television show and movie and elementary-school curriculum throws it at us daily. Even C.S. Lewis, a towering icon of “mean old conservative” Catholics, declared to his 1940s-ish “conservative” 88-percent-fornicating readership that “the sins of the flesh . . . are the least bad of all sins.” Tell that to Sr. Lucia, Clive—but suffice it to say that I’m not sure anyone’s been in denial about the prevalence of fornication for a long, long time.

Continued below.

Are You a Fornication-Denier?

According to "polls," lots of Catholics have premarital sex, and they always have. Does this mean the Church is "in denial" about it being wrong?

www.catholic.com

In the picture she is wearing a white dress symbolizing purity. White dress weddings should only be allowed by permission of the priest after the couple have verified that there has been no extra-marital sex going on and that both of them are in fact chaste. The rest can wear grey or black or something.

I knew an actually decent priest who said this just wasn't his hill to die on. To him that ship had sailed. It must be hard to try to maintain chaste celibacy when almost nobody else has maintained chastity.

I'm betting the stats are a bit better for those who attend the TLM. Or some rare kinds of evangelicals. Doubtless not perfect but better. So we have to stamp out the TLM so we can get our stats in line with the rest of America.

 

[fide]

In the picture she is wearing a white dress symbolizing purity. White dress weddings should only be allowed by permission of the priest after the couple have verified that there has been no extra-marital sex going on and that both of them are in fact chaste. The rest can wear grey or black or something.

I knew an actually decent priest who said this just wasn't his hill to die on. To him that ship had sailed. It must be hard to try to maintain chaste celibacy when almost nobody else has maintained chastity.

I'm betting the stats are a bit better for those who attend the TLM. Or some rare kinds of evangelicals. Doubtless not perfect but better. So we have to stamp out the TLM so we can get our stats in line with the rest of America.

"Wasn't his hill to die on"? To your knowledge and history with him, did/does he have a hill he would (professionally) "die" on - that is, get into trouble career-wise and lose pastoral reputation credentials by championing one or more elements of our Faith - especially concerning morality? I didn't understand what he meant, for years, when my spiritual counselor said to me one time, "we have too many priests." I have more recently come to see exactly what he meant.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Wasn't his hill to die on"? To your knowledge and history with him, did/does he have a hill he would (professionally) "die" on - that is, get into trouble career-wise and lose pastoral reputation credentials by championing one or more elements of our Faith - especially concerning morality? I didn't understand what he meant, for years, when my spiritual counselor said to me one time, "we have too many priests." I have more recently come to see exactly what he meant.

He was an associate who I have lost contact with. He did do battle with Satanists in his next assignment and got some national notice from that. After that I lost contact.

 

[WarriorAngel]

In the picture she is wearing a white dress symbolizing purity. White dress weddings should only be allowed by permission of the priest after the couple have verified that there has been no extra-marital sex going on and that both of them are in fact chaste. The rest can wear grey or black or something.

I knew an actually decent priest who said this just wasn't his hill to die on. To him that ship had sailed. It must be hard to try to maintain chaste celibacy when almost nobody else has maintained chastity.

I'm betting the stats are a bit better for those who attend the TLM. Or some rare kinds of evangelicals. Doubtless not perfect but better. So we have to stamp out the TLM so we can get our stats in line with the rest of America.

What if widowed?
Or annulled?

Off white?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What if widowed?
Or annulled?

Off white?

A widowed person wouldn’t have been fornicating. So white of course. And someone in a null marriage wouldn’t have had the intent to be fornicating. So white of course.

 

[Ave Maria]

In the picture she is wearing a white dress symbolizing purity. White dress weddings should only be allowed by permission of the priest after the couple have verified that there has been no extra-marital sex going on and that both of them are in fact chaste. The rest can wear grey or black or something.

I knew an actually decent priest who said this just wasn't his hill to die on. To him that ship had sailed. It must be hard to try to maintain chaste celibacy when almost nobody else has maintained chastity.

I'm betting the stats are a bit better for those who attend the TLM. Or some rare kinds of evangelicals. Doubtless not perfect but better. So we have to stamp out the TLM so we can get our stats in line with the rest of America.

What about those who have committed the sin of fornication but have repented and are getting married? Should they also have to be shamed in this way?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What about those who have committed the sin of fornication but have repented and are getting married? Should they also have to be shamed in this way?

Are they continuing to fornicate or not? If they have repented and changed their ways then why not white?

I seem to have struck a nerve with my suggestion that fornicators (not widows, not those with annulments, not repentant former fornicators) not be allowed to wear white.

By the way, this seems now to be moot because the Vatican now allows blessings for unannulled divorced couples and for homosexual partners. Everything is allowed. The new way is apparently that we can and should all be fornication deniers. If we're Catholic anyway.

 

[Ave Maria]

Are they continuing to fornicate or not? If they have repented and changed their ways then why not white?

I seem to have struck a nerve with my suggestion that fornicators (not widows, not those with annulments, not repentant former fornicators) not be allowed to wear white.

By the way, this seems now to be moot because the Vatican now allows blessings for unannulled divorced couples and for homosexual partners. Everything is allowed. The new way is apparently that we can and should all be fornication deniers. If we're Catholic anyway.

Well, if they have repented, then I see no reason why they can't wear white if we're going to go with your suggestion that fornicators getting married in the Catholic Church wear something other than white. After all, if their souls are white after having been washed clean in the confessional, why not let their dress be white too?

But anyway, I honestly don't know if making fornicators wear something other than white would be a good idea anyway. Should we publicly shame people who are living a life of sin but are seeking to get married in the Catholic Church? Should we even let unrepentant sinners get married in the Catholic Church at all? I mean, shouldn't they be at least striving to live a life of virtue before they're allowed to get married in the Catholic Church?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, if they have repented, then I see no reason why they can't wear white if we're going to go with your suggestion that fornicators getting married in the Catholic Church wear something other than white. After all, if their souls are white after having been washed clean in the confessional, why not let their dress be white too?

Agreed.

But anyway, I honestly don't know if making fornicators wear something other than white would be a good idea anyway. Should we publicly shame people who are living a life of sin but are seeking to get married in the Catholic Church? Should we even let unrepentant sinners get married in the Catholic Church at all? I mean, shouldn't they be at least striving to live a life of virtue before they're allowed to get married in the Catholic Church?

According to the Vatican, If I read today's announcement correctly, everybody gets blessings for everything. Some language about the difference between a liturgical vs a non-liturgical blessing, but that seems a distinction without a difference. It seems not to matter anymore. Maybe my concubine* and I can finally get a blessing and make her mother happy.

*fictional concubine

 

[WarriorAngel]

LOL Chevy, it's like the scarlet letter or the beginning of the Church where they wore sack cloth outside of Mass.

By the way, this seems now to be moot because the Vatican now allows blessings for unannulled divorced couples and for homosexual partners. Everything is allowed. The new way is apparently that we can and should all be fornication deniers. If we're Catholic anyway.

Blessings outside of Church.

What are blessings?

Blessings are not sacraments; they are not of Divine institution; they do not confer sanctifying grace; and they do not produce their effects in virtue of the rite itself. They are sacramentals and, as such, they are held to produce the following specific effects:

• Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it
• Freedom from power of evil spirits
• Preservation and restoration of bodily health
• Various other benefits, temporal or spiritual

All these effects are not necessarily inherent in any one blessing; some are caused by one formula, and others by another, nor are they infallibly produced. It depends altogether on the Church's suffrages that persons using the things blessed derive supernatural advantages. There is no reason to limit the miraculous interference of God to the early ages of the Church's history, and the Church never accepts these wonderful occurrences unless the evidence in support of their authenticity is absolutely unimpeachable.

Instances are alleged in the lives of the saints where miracles have been wrought by the blessings of holy men and women.

 

[WarriorAngel]

FWIW that lifestyle is from evil spirits.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Freedom from power of evil spirits

I'd be all for such blessings. Especially for me.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So the classic term, fornication, seems most sensible. It’s still called that today, but no one wants to admit it, nor that it is a mortal sin—meaning the sort of thing that will send unrepentant and fully-knowing practitioners to hell. I suppose the Church is still “in denial about” it in that way, albeit quietly and with some embarrassment.

In Latin, the term fornix means arch or vault. In ancient Rome, prostitutes waited for their customers out of the rain under vaulted ceilings, and fornix became a euphemism for brothels, and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel.

Probably most people realize that casual fornication is very different from a couple intending to be married and in a committed relationship. I am not saying that makes it right but it does make "Hell" a pretty severe penalty for something that is practically natural to happen.