Is Fornication A Lesser Sin If Marriage Is Prevented By An Outside For

[Don John of Austria]

First let me apologize for any conversations I may have left in mid stride. Life got in the way. I will find those threads I was engauged in and see if there is anything that I feel compeled to respond to, if not, I will let them die.

But to the question at hand.

Historically, and I am sure now, there have been men and women, who for one reason or another ( often for reasons of state) were impeded from marrying. Not from marrying a particular person, but from marrying anyone. For these persons, was fornication a lesser sin? If so, how much so?


I ask this because of some particular historical figures who seem to be particularly holy in virtually every way, devout, pious, humble, etc. who had illegitimate children.

Thoughts?

[Marie-Therese]

To be honest, I can't see that it could ever be "lesser."

If I am correct in interpreting your comments to include those precluded from marriage due to religious vows, then I would find fornication to compound the sin, since not only would it be a mortal sin of its own right, but in the commission of that sin, the vows taken would also be broken. To me, that is twice as bad. If a person under vows has doubts that they can remain in their consecrated state, they should seek to be released from those vows.

I can't think of an instance where marriage "prevented by an outside force" would ever warrant or excuse fornication. Sexual intimacy is supposed to be reserved for those in the state of marriage. Now, if two people who desired to marry each other were forcibly separated by others, that is a situation where I am not sure whether there are stipulations in canon law to validate vows they might make to each other in secret...but if they engage in fornication, that is still a mortal sin.

Scholars? I'm going to defer if any theologian might have some more substantial input.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1928701' date='Jul 22 2009, 08:29 PM']To be honest, I can't see that it could ever be "lesser."

If I am correct in interpreting your comments to include those precluded from marriage due to religious vows, then I would find fornication to compound the sin, since not only would it be a mortal sin of its own right, but in the commission of that sin, the vows taken would also be broken. To me, that is twice as bad. If a person under vows has doubts that they can remain in their consecrated state, they should seek to be released from those vows.

I can't think of an instance where marriage "prevented by an outside force" would ever warrant or excuse fornication. Sexual intimacy is supposed to be reserved for those in the state of marriage. Now, if two people who desired to marry each other were forcibly separated by others, that is a situation where I am not sure whether there are stipulations in canon law to validate vows they might make to each other in secret...but if they engage in fornication, that is still a mortal sin.

Scholars? I'm going to defer if any theologian might have some more substantial input.[/quote]


Well no I was not including those under religious vows, those are taken of one's own will, and breaking them is a of a differant nature.

Secret marriages are null, according to council, I want to say Lateran IV but I could be off a council or 2.

I am thinking particularly of those who are forbidden by the state/ the law ( which might include parental permission depending on the nation and the time) to marry. If one is not allowed to marry anyone, be it ones own choice or not, would years of forced abstinence mitigate the culpability of the act?

I am not really taking a ppostition on way or the other, not yet anyway.


'Marie-Therese' --- of course I completly agree that Sex is reserved for the married, I am just not sure violation would ALWAYS be mortal.

[CatherineM]

I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think there have been situations where people were not allowed to marry because of mental incapacity, or even genetic background (Nazi Germany). Just because they were not allowed by civil authorities doesn't mean that a priest couldn't have married them. I'm trying to think of a situation, and all I can come up with is someone whose husband is MIA, and although it's been several years, you can't have them declared dead yet. I don't know though, it seems that we are trying to say that humans aren't capable of being celibate in difficult situations.

[Winchester]

Of course it's possible. In a case where the sacrament was unjustly denied, I would think it would be similar to those who had no access to a priest for several months--they may consider themselves married and wait until the priest arrived to witness. If the only option were a secret marriage, I don't think that would apply to the normal rule against them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1928687' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:15 PM']First let me apologize for any conversations I may have left in mid stride. Life got in the way. I will find those threads I was engauged in and see if there is anything that I feel compeled to respond to, if not, I will let them die.

But to the question at hand.

Historically, and I am sure now, there have been men and women, who for one reason or another ( often for reasons of state) were impeded from marrying. Not from marrying a particular person, but from marrying anyone. For these persons, was fornication a lesser sin? If so, how much so?


I ask this because of some particular historical figures who seem to be particularly holy in virtually every way, devout, pious, humble, etc. who had illegitimate children.

Thoughts?[/quote]
Can you kindly list the people you are talking about?

[Resurrexi]

Blessed Charlemange had numerous illegitimate children. I am assuming that he repented before his death.

[homeschoolmom]

Lesser than what?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1929861' date='Jul 23 2009, 07:10 PM']Lesser than what?[/quote]
Than those who have no artifical impedement to marriage.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1928822' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:37 PM']I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think there have been situations where people were not allowed to marry because of mental incapacity, or even genetic background (Nazi Germany). Just because they were not allowed by civil authorities doesn't mean that a priest couldn't have married them. I'm trying to think of a situation, and all I can come up with is someone whose husband is MIA, and although it's been several years, you can't have them declared dead yet. I don't know though, it seems that we are trying to say that humans aren't capable of being celibate in difficult situations.[/quote]

Actually, I can think of many situations where a priest would not have married someone who was impeded by the law. In our own country a priest will not marry you with out the blessing of the state. Dispite the Church's long standing objection to the civil authorities claims over marriage. I KNOW this is the case.... I tried.

But this was particularly true in the past when their were Catholic Monarch's who may have forbidden such marriages.



Some examples, Blessed Charlemange. Charles V, The original Don John of Austria (who was pratically a perfect christian in every other way, and hardly a womanizer) numerous nobles and princes, etc. etc.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1928839' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:00 PM']Of course it's possible. In a case where the sacrament was unjustly denied, I would think it would be similar to those who had no access to a priest for several months--they may consider themselves married and wait until the priest arrived to witness. If the only option were a secret marriage, I don't think that would apply to the normal rule against them.[/quote]
How can two assume they're married without the priest/deacon as witness? I don't quite understand.

[MIKolbe]

No offense, but this seems like plea-bargaining at the foot of the cross to me.

While I realize a "sin is sin" argument lacks the nuance that a just and merciful God would have, this instance is not one of those cases, imho.

Having been married for 9 years, and having moved out of state, separated from my wife for about 2.5 months, chastity is chastity and 'difficulties' assert themselves in every situation.

The argument almost makes it sound that if you are married, you are magically protected from fornitcating. I would say for some, the opposite is true.

[StColette]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1933201' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:07 PM']How can two assume they're married without the priest/deacon as witness? I don't quite understand. [/quote]

I think Winchester is trying to point out that in some places (a long time ago) did not have access to a priest on a regular basis. Some places would go years upon years without a priest, deacon, or bishop coming through their area.

I guess a scenario that pops into my head is two baptized Catholics get stranded on an island with no hopes of ever being rescued. Makes me think of the movie Blue Lagoon lol

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1933205' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:18 PM']No offense, but this seems like plea-bargaining at the foot of the cross to me.

While I realize a "sin is sin" argument lacks the nuance that a just and merciful God would have, this instance is not one of those cases, imho.

Having been married for 9 years, and having moved out of state, separated from my wife for about 2.5 months, chastity is chastity and 'difficulties' assert themselves in every situation.

The argument almost makes it sound that if you are married, you are magically protected from fornitcating. I would say for some, the opposite is true.[/quote]
Marriage makes it impossible to simply fornicate, when your married it is adultery.

I think being away from your spouse kind of pales in comparision to being say 30 and having not been allowed to marry.

I realize that in our liberalized culture this seems impossible, but through most of history it was a distinct possiblity.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='StColette' post='1933206' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:19 PM']I think Winchester is trying to point out that in some places (a long time ago) did not have access to a priest on a regular basis. Some places would go years upon years without a priest, deacon, or bishop coming through their area.

I guess a scenario that pops into my head is two baptized Catholics get stranded on an island with no hopes of ever being rescued. Makes me think of the movie Blue Lagoon lol[/quote]


Well while Blue Lagoon would apply, one need not go into an exotic local or the distant past, all one must do is go to rural Mexico to find people who may not see a priest for more than a year. THese people are not expected to wait until a priest gets around to them, but are allowed to MArry publicly and have it blessed by the Church when the priest comes by. In developed countries modern transportation has reduced this need, but it still goes on in many parts of the world.