Pre-Marital Infidelity and the Single Christian
Mar 23, 2011
Joe Carter
Each week my neighbors and I engage in a curious ethical ritual. On Wednesday morning before we leave for work we set outside our doors an artifact that expresses our obligation to the welfare of future generations. We call these objects recycling bins.
Recycling is one example of an action that we take in the present to benefit a group in the future. The earth has enough space and resources that all current generations could be extremely wasteful without having a noticeably detrimental effect on the global population. Future generations, however, would likely suffer if we were wantonly careless in our use of resources. For this reason the recycling of waste products is viewed as an important, albeit minor, act of personal virtue.
Although most people probably do not need to be persuaded that we have moral obligations to future generations, it would be useful to examine what form such an argument would take. Philosopher Jim Nolt outlines it as follows:
1. We have obligations to all currently living people.
2. Future people are in no morally relevant respect different from currently living people.
3. We have obligations to all future people.
To the argument Nolt adds:
The moral irrelevance of time of birth is perhaps best understood by the realization that we are future people-to our predecessors. The distinction between past and future is, after all, not ultimate and absolute, but relative to temporal perspective. In that respect, it is like the designation, "foreigner," which is relative to geographical perspective. Who counts as a foreigner depends on the country we inhabit. Likewise, who counts as a future person depends on the time we inhabit. All people are foreigners to people of countries other than their own. Likewise, all people belong to the future generations of their predecessors. [emphasis in original]
If this argument is true, then we have generic obligations (e.g., don’t despoil the planet) to future generic groups (e.g., people living in a.d. 2056). But could it be the case that we also have specific obligations to specific individuals in the future? For example, I believe that Christian men and women who are unmarried (and are not called to a life of chastity) have certain present obligations to the person who will be their future spouse.
Shouldn’t this be obvious? After all, regardless of whether they come from a secular or religious worldview, people in the West generally share the idea that there is one specific person—a true love, soul mate, etc.—for each of us. Whether chosen by God or fate, this is the person we are supposed to share our lives with in a state of marital commitment.
Setting aside the matters of providence and romance, we can take as a brute fact that for most people, that person currently exists somewhere in the world. When we meet them and begin to recognize that they are the one we plan to spend the rest of our lives with, our obligations become clear. But what about before this recognition occurs—or even before they come into our lives? There is at least one obligation, I would argue, that is recognized after we marry that should be binding on us even before we meet our future spouse: the duty to be sexually faithful.
Although we may be separated, as Nolt might say, “relative to temporal perspective,” this person exists now and is not in any morally relevant respect different from the person we will wed. The duties of a husband to be sexually faithful, therefore, would extend not just from the present (when we cleave together in a one-flesh union) and future (throughout our marriage) but also backward into the past (the time prior to our marriage, or even before we meet).
Obviously, not all duties are of this type. Some obligations that spouses owe to each other are previously required of other people, namely parents, while a smaller range of commitments are unique and exclusive to the matrimonial relationship. For example, a husband has an obligation both to provide financial support and to remain sexually faithful to his wife. The financial obligation is one that is initially born by her parents, and perhaps later in her life, by the woman herself. Naturally, the future husband is not expected to provide for her materially before they have even met. That is not a role or duty that is exclusive to marriage. The sexual fidelity obligation, however, is a unique duty that is not shared by any other person. The requirement for lifelong monogamy is specific to the marital relationship and should therefore be binding even before the spouses have committed themselves to each other.
Consider the case of a man who is scheduled to be married on February 14th and has sexual relations with a woman who is not his fiancé on:
(a) The night before his wedding.
(b) The day of his wedding.
(c) The day after his wedding.
The action in each instance is the same but the term we’d use to describe the man would depend on when the event occurred: (a) would make the man a cheating cad, (c) and adulterer, and (b) either a cheating cad or an adulterer, depending on the time of day. Regardless of what we choose to call it, the consequence of the action is the same—the man has been unfaithful to his betrothed. Notice that though the “temporal perspective” changes the semantics, it doesn’t change the fact that the action is immoral.
Under this view, pre-marital sexual relations become a form of pre-marital infidelity, for we are being unfaithful to the one we will eventually pledge emotional and sexual allegiance.
Why then do we not honor this obligation? As with most things in life, what we claim to believe is betrayed by our actions. Although unmarried people often claim to believe that they are waiting for their "true love" their actions show that they don’t really believe that claim—or that future love—to be true. If they seriously believed that their true love existed then how could they be sexually unfaithful to the one person who God has chosen for them?
My recycling bin is a symbol of the obligation I feel I owe future generations. Unfortunately, I had no such token to give my wife that showed the obligation I owed her before we met. Instead, I had only a string of sexual sins that showed that before we met I treated the concept of "marital fidelity" as a useful fiction.
I offer this confession to young people who have not yet lost one of the most valuable gifts God gives man or woman: the ability to give oneself completely to the person you love. If you want to show true love to your future spouse, then start now by keeping the Seventh Commandment.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
John Nolt, Arguments for and against Obligations to Future Generations
Comments:
3.23.2011 | 1:57am
Joe Carter says:
@Todd - So you believe that single Christians have no moral obligations to their future spouse? If so, do you think that we also don't have any moral obligations to people who will come into existence in the future (e.g., our future children)?
3.23.2011 | 8:46am
Michael PS says:
I wonder what Sir Boyle Roche would have made of this argument.
When a debate arose in the Irish House of Commons on the vote of a grant which was recommended by Sir John Parnell, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one not likely to be felt burdensome for many years to come - it was observed in reply, that the House had no just right to load posterity with a weighty debt for what could in no degree operate to their advantage. Sir Boyle, eager to defend the measure of Government, immediately rose, and in a very few words, put forward the most unanswerable argument which human ingenuity could possibly devise. "What, Mr. Speaker!" said he, "and so we are to beggar ourselves for fear of vexing posterity! Now, I would ask the honourable gentleman, and still more honourable House, why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity; for what has posterity done for us?"
When a debate arose in the Irish House of Commons on the vote of a grant which was recommended by Sir John Parnell, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one not likely to be felt burdensome for many years to come - it was observed in reply, that the House had no just right to load posterity with a weighty debt for what could in no degree operate to their advantage. Sir Boyle, eager to defend the measure of Government, immediately rose, and in a very few words, put forward the most unanswerable argument which human ingenuity could possibly devise. "What, Mr. Speaker!" said he, "and so we are to beggar ourselves for fear of vexing posterity! Now, I would ask the honourable gentleman, and still more honourable House, why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity; for what has posterity done for us?"
3.23.2011 | 9:08am
Bop says:
Your second premise above should perhaps read: Future people will be in no morally relevant respect different from currently living people, and your third should read: We will have obligations to future people when they are actual.
I find your notion of faithfulness absurdly narrow. And somewhat frightening. To think that you could subordinate life to some exercise in analytic philosophy. Perhaps you could extend your philosophical reading to include works by Flaubert, Tolstoy or Genet? I mean, life is much more rounded, complicated and interesting than a syllogism would suggest. I am sure that there are many women who are “sexually faithful” to their husbands but who are in truth not faithful to them as wives. On the other hand, I am sure there are many women who have extra-marital sexual encounters who nevertheless are essentially faithful to their husbands. This being so, everything you say amounts to no more than something that should not be recycled for the benefit of the future you.
I find your notion of faithfulness absurdly narrow. And somewhat frightening. To think that you could subordinate life to some exercise in analytic philosophy. Perhaps you could extend your philosophical reading to include works by Flaubert, Tolstoy or Genet? I mean, life is much more rounded, complicated and interesting than a syllogism would suggest. I am sure that there are many women who are “sexually faithful” to their husbands but who are in truth not faithful to them as wives. On the other hand, I am sure there are many women who have extra-marital sexual encounters who nevertheless are essentially faithful to their husbands. This being so, everything you say amounts to no more than something that should not be recycled for the benefit of the future you.
3.23.2011 | 10:09am
Jeffrey Polet says:
Joe:
I think this is a smart argument. I would take it even further, however, and say that the obligation extends not only to your future spouse, but also to you and your spouse's progeny, to yourself, and to your supporting community. There are all sorts of problems associated with having multiple sexual partners. For example, a previous partner is "frozen in time," as it were, and as your spouse ages the reality of that person will have difficulty measuring up to the memory of a prior one. Previous experiences are recorded in memory and can raise invidious issues of comparison, or wayward longings. We know from the social science data that the more partners a person has before marriage, the less likely they are to remain faithful after marriage. All this would go to your ability to give of yourself fully and freely in marriage. There is the issue of what you might say to your 16-year old children when they are contemplating sexual activity, and the credibility you can bring to the table.
There is too the issue of how these unions get sacramentalized, and thus implicates our understanding of what marriage is. (Bop, above, for example, seems to have a rather interesting notion of what constitutes marriage. "Honey, I am having sex with other persons, but I am ESSENTIALLY faithful to you." I must confess I have no idea what that might mean, and frankly doubt very much my wife would buy such an explanation.) Your article points to the price that is paid when we start uncoupling sex from marriage and from reproduction. That it is more than a reproductive act is undeniable; but it is never less than that.
My one quibble here is what I take to be a highly romanticized (and Platonic) idea that there is a "soul-mate" out there for each of us. Frankly, I think that cuts across the central gist of your essay. We are married to the person we are married to, and in the context of that practice develop a syncopation based on mutual giving and virtues of fidelity, etc. True love is found in acts of true love, not in some search for our other halves.
I think this is a smart argument. I would take it even further, however, and say that the obligation extends not only to your future spouse, but also to you and your spouse's progeny, to yourself, and to your supporting community. There are all sorts of problems associated with having multiple sexual partners. For example, a previous partner is "frozen in time," as it were, and as your spouse ages the reality of that person will have difficulty measuring up to the memory of a prior one. Previous experiences are recorded in memory and can raise invidious issues of comparison, or wayward longings. We know from the social science data that the more partners a person has before marriage, the less likely they are to remain faithful after marriage. All this would go to your ability to give of yourself fully and freely in marriage. There is the issue of what you might say to your 16-year old children when they are contemplating sexual activity, and the credibility you can bring to the table.
There is too the issue of how these unions get sacramentalized, and thus implicates our understanding of what marriage is. (Bop, above, for example, seems to have a rather interesting notion of what constitutes marriage. "Honey, I am having sex with other persons, but I am ESSENTIALLY faithful to you." I must confess I have no idea what that might mean, and frankly doubt very much my wife would buy such an explanation.) Your article points to the price that is paid when we start uncoupling sex from marriage and from reproduction. That it is more than a reproductive act is undeniable; but it is never less than that.
My one quibble here is what I take to be a highly romanticized (and Platonic) idea that there is a "soul-mate" out there for each of us. Frankly, I think that cuts across the central gist of your essay. We are married to the person we are married to, and in the context of that practice develop a syncopation based on mutual giving and virtues of fidelity, etc. True love is found in acts of true love, not in some search for our other halves.
3.23.2011 | 10:18am
Dewy says:
@Bop
Are you suggesting that sexual fidelity is unnecessary for one to be a faithful spouse? What do you mean by "essentially faithful?" Perhaps you and I have a different understandings of faithfulness because, for me, when one's spouse commits adultery, such spouse cannot be said as faithful.
Are you suggesting that sexual fidelity is unnecessary for one to be a faithful spouse? What do you mean by "essentially faithful?" Perhaps you and I have a different understandings of faithfulness because, for me, when one's spouse commits adultery, such spouse cannot be said as faithful.
3.23.2011 | 10:18am
Irene says:
I'm not sure whether this argument is sound or not -- it's not immediately convincing -- but it also seems unnecessary. Whether or not single people have an obligation to a future spouse (and thinking too much about future spouses is usually a bad idea, because they are currently imaginary to the person doing the thinking), we have a much more obvious current obligation to a currently known (well, partly known) God -- and if I'm not even going to honor current obligations to current persons, why would I be more likely to honor future obligations to imaginary persons?
3.23.2011 | 10:58am
Emily says:
I don't see why the sexual is peculiar in this argument. If I'm obligated to my future husband to behave now as I would when I'm married to him in that aspect of relationship, why not others? When I'm married I won't date other men, kiss them, or even spend extended amounts of time alone with them. So shouldn't fidelity to my future spouse depend on my abstaining from those things now, as well?
3.23.2011 | 11:08am
bop says:
@Jeffrey Polet, Dewy:
"Honey, I am having sex with other persons, but I am ESSENTIALLY faithful to you." I must confess I have no idea what that might mean, and frankly doubt very much my wife would buy such an explanation.”
It is a pity you did not go on to comment on the other half of what I said with respect to faithfulness, viz., that a woman may be sexually faithful to her husband, and yet be essentially faithless to him as a wife. If you allow for the possible truth of this, then you must allow for the truth of the inverse, that a woman can be sexually active outside of her marriage, yet remain a faithful wife to her husband. What I am saying is that sexual fidelity is not the same as marital fidelity, and that while the latter may include the former, there is no law that says it must. We forget that people are real and individual, and so too are their marriages. Think of Karl Barth and his marriage.
If I spit on future generations and on Joe Carter then I spit on two conceptual entities: future generations and Joe Carter. But clearly spitting on Joe Carter is much more offensive because, unlike future generations, Joe Carter is also an existentially real human being to whom I owe existentially real obligations. I cannot be said to owe existentially real obligations of marital faithfulness to one who, although existentially a real though unknown to me person, remains as yet existentially unreal as my spouse.
"Honey, I am having sex with other persons, but I am ESSENTIALLY faithful to you." I must confess I have no idea what that might mean, and frankly doubt very much my wife would buy such an explanation.”
It is a pity you did not go on to comment on the other half of what I said with respect to faithfulness, viz., that a woman may be sexually faithful to her husband, and yet be essentially faithless to him as a wife. If you allow for the possible truth of this, then you must allow for the truth of the inverse, that a woman can be sexually active outside of her marriage, yet remain a faithful wife to her husband. What I am saying is that sexual fidelity is not the same as marital fidelity, and that while the latter may include the former, there is no law that says it must. We forget that people are real and individual, and so too are their marriages. Think of Karl Barth and his marriage.
If I spit on future generations and on Joe Carter then I spit on two conceptual entities: future generations and Joe Carter. But clearly spitting on Joe Carter is much more offensive because, unlike future generations, Joe Carter is also an existentially real human being to whom I owe existentially real obligations. I cannot be said to owe existentially real obligations of marital faithfulness to one who, although existentially a real though unknown to me person, remains as yet existentially unreal as my spouse.
3.23.2011 | 11:20am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
It seems clear to me that this is merely one example of our moral obligation to future generations and, for that matter, to past generations. (Yes, we have obligations to those already dead to pass on the heritage and legacy that they left to us.) Our obligation includes not only fidelity to our future spouse prior to our marriage, but to our future and would-be future children and later descendants. Contraception and abortion are sins that harm. The story of Onan in Genesis 38 illustrates this moral sin quite effectively, where Onan's sin would have had the effect of cutting off the line that lead to Jesse, King David and our Lord. C.S. Lewis addresses this same moral obligation in his book "That Hideous Strength," in which Merlin condemns Jane as "the falsest lady of any at this time alive…. For, Sir, it was the purpose of God that she and her lord should between them have begotten a child by whom the enemies should have been put out of Logres for a thousand years." Ransom, the leader of the resistance against the evil threatening England, replies that Jane is only recently married, to which Merlin responds:
Be assured that the child will never be born, for the hour of its begetting is passed. Of their own will they are barren: I did not know till now that the usages of Sulva were so common among you. For a hundred generations in two lines the begetting of this child was prepared; and unless God should rip up the work of time, such seed, and such an hour, in such a land, shall never be again.
Did Lewis have in mind Genesis 38 when he wrote this passage? We don't know, but I think it likely.
Indeed, in the end, all sexual sins are not merely sins against one's spouse (present, future or past), but also against one's descendants and would-be descendants (that is, those denied existence because of those sins, because what greater hatred can one display than to act to deliberately deny another existence?)
I would go further and observe that much (if not all) of what Scripture identifies as sin is sin not at some whim of God but because it is harmful to ourselves, to specified others, to unspecified others or to humanity in general. Thus, our Lord could sum the entire law with this observation:
[37] And [Jesus] said to [the Sadducee], “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:37-40 ESV)
That teaching of our Lord only makes since if "all the Law and the Prophets" were commanded so as not to harm others. Thus, anything that we do which violates the moral Law as revealed in Scripture is in fact a sin because it harms in some fashion ourselves or others, whether that person is or those persons are alive at the time of our immoral action or not.
Excellent post, Mr. Carter.
Be assured that the child will never be born, for the hour of its begetting is passed. Of their own will they are barren: I did not know till now that the usages of Sulva were so common among you. For a hundred generations in two lines the begetting of this child was prepared; and unless God should rip up the work of time, such seed, and such an hour, in such a land, shall never be again.
Did Lewis have in mind Genesis 38 when he wrote this passage? We don't know, but I think it likely.
Indeed, in the end, all sexual sins are not merely sins against one's spouse (present, future or past), but also against one's descendants and would-be descendants (that is, those denied existence because of those sins, because what greater hatred can one display than to act to deliberately deny another existence?)
I would go further and observe that much (if not all) of what Scripture identifies as sin is sin not at some whim of God but because it is harmful to ourselves, to specified others, to unspecified others or to humanity in general. Thus, our Lord could sum the entire law with this observation:
[37] And [Jesus] said to [the Sadducee], “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:37-40 ESV)
That teaching of our Lord only makes since if "all the Law and the Prophets" were commanded so as not to harm others. Thus, anything that we do which violates the moral Law as revealed in Scripture is in fact a sin because it harms in some fashion ourselves or others, whether that person is or those persons are alive at the time of our immoral action or not.
Excellent post, Mr. Carter.
3.23.2011 | 11:23am
Sally Rogers says:
I believe St. Thomas made a similar argument: that fornication was an act of injustice to the children who might be created as a result of such an act. Fornication has the tendency to create children who lack married parents, an injustice to them and a cause of great injury that sometimes lasts an entire lifetime. So he was in part arguing that we owe a duty to our future offspring, to avoid the injustice of creating them to be illegitimate.
With regard to our future spouses, I think that many in today's world would reject your argument because they delude themselves into thinking that their current sexual partner may in fact be their future spouse. And they thought something similar about their previous sexual partner. Indeed, I think it is quite common to believe that it will be impossible to find that future spouse without engaging in fornication in the here and now. This is how most people seem to do "courtship" in our culture, and so your argument will be a non-starter to a very large percentage of people in our culture, who cannot conceive of getting married to someone with whom one has not had sex.
With regard to our future spouses, I think that many in today's world would reject your argument because they delude themselves into thinking that their current sexual partner may in fact be their future spouse. And they thought something similar about their previous sexual partner. Indeed, I think it is quite common to believe that it will be impossible to find that future spouse without engaging in fornication in the here and now. This is how most people seem to do "courtship" in our culture, and so your argument will be a non-starter to a very large percentage of people in our culture, who cannot conceive of getting married to someone with whom one has not had sex.
3.23.2011 | 11:27am
largo says:
To further Emily's comment:
If my current spouse dies and I remarry, am I being unfaithful to my later spouse by virtue(!) of my sexual relationship with my current spouse? I think the conundrums are more metaphysical than ethical though. By this I mean to say that, while the ethical intuition may be sound, the metaphysics is not -- and this is what makes the ethical conclusion unsound.
If my current spouse dies and I remarry, am I being unfaithful to my later spouse by virtue(!) of my sexual relationship with my current spouse? I think the conundrums are more metaphysical than ethical though. By this I mean to say that, while the ethical intuition may be sound, the metaphysics is not -- and this is what makes the ethical conclusion unsound.
3.23.2011 | 11:30am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@bop, who said:
"If I spit on future generations and on Joe Carter then I spit on two conceptual entities: future generations and Joe Carter. But clearly spitting on Joe Carter is much more offensive because, unlike future generations, Joe Carter is also an existentially real human being to whom I owe existentially real obligations. I cannot be said to owe existentially real obligations of marital faithfulness to one who, although existentially a real though unknown to me person, remains as yet existentially unreal as my spouse."
I wouldn't want to make that argument on Judgment Day, but then I'll be too busy facing my own sins to worry about those faced by others.
"If I spit on future generations and on Joe Carter then I spit on two conceptual entities: future generations and Joe Carter. But clearly spitting on Joe Carter is much more offensive because, unlike future generations, Joe Carter is also an existentially real human being to whom I owe existentially real obligations. I cannot be said to owe existentially real obligations of marital faithfulness to one who, although existentially a real though unknown to me person, remains as yet existentially unreal as my spouse."
I wouldn't want to make that argument on Judgment Day, but then I'll be too busy facing my own sins to worry about those faced by others.
3.23.2011 | 11:40am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Of course not, largo. It is not a sin to remarry after the death of one's spouse. Scripture is clear on that point. Emily's argument suffers from a similar, though not as clear, flaw. Courting or dating behavior may be permissible while one is seeking a spouse, but would be sinful once one has a spouse because courting or dating is no longer appropriate to one who has a spouse (courting and dating existing precisely for the purpose of finding a spouse).
Sex, on the other hand, is reserved for those married both because of obligations to one's past, present or future spouse, because of obligations to one's existing or future descendants, and because of obligations to the community not to contribute to an environment that weakens marital obligations. That is, courting and dating are appropriate under some circumstances; sex outside of marriage never is.
Thus, both her and your examples are logically flawed because they are premised on category mistakes.
Sex, on the other hand, is reserved for those married both because of obligations to one's past, present or future spouse, because of obligations to one's existing or future descendants, and because of obligations to the community not to contribute to an environment that weakens marital obligations. That is, courting and dating are appropriate under some circumstances; sex outside of marriage never is.
Thus, both her and your examples are logically flawed because they are premised on category mistakes.
3.23.2011 | 11:45am
Howard Kainz says:
In an ethics class I taught once, I felt we were not on the "same page" regarding the definition of "adultery." I asked what they thought it meant. For many, it meant cheating on your girlfriend or boyfriend. The future is far from the minds of many young people.
3.23.2011 | 11:46am
largo says:
"For a hundred generations in two lines the begetting of this child was prepared; and unless God should rip up the work of time, such seed, and such an hour, in such a land, shall never be again."
Aiya. He makes God sound like a Reverend Mother.
Aiya. He makes God sound like a Reverend Mother.
3.23.2011 | 12:16pm
largo says:
I agree Gregory, and should have indicated that my question was rhetorical. It is not a sin to remarry after the death of one's spouse, and sex within that second marriage would not be sinful on account of the first. What seems to follow easily from Joe's thesis is that sex within the -first- marriage would be sinful, on account of the -second-! This is absurd, and is certainly beyond what Joe intended to entertain.
I say this seems to 'follow easily' from his thesis because it is easy -at first glance- to draw that conclusion. His thesis may be more subtle than to allow that, and his expression of it need not be his last or his best. Above all, my inference itself may have been 'easy' -- ie, facile.
I say this seems to 'follow easily' from his thesis because it is easy -at first glance- to draw that conclusion. His thesis may be more subtle than to allow that, and his expression of it need not be his last or his best. Above all, my inference itself may have been 'easy' -- ie, facile.
3.23.2011 | 12:57pm
Fred says:
_It is a pity you did not go on to comment on the other half of what I said with respect to faithfulness, viz., that a woman may be sexually faithful to her husband, and yet be essentially faithless to him as a wife. If you allow for the possible truth of this, then you must allow for the truth of the inverse, that a woman can be sexually active outside of her marriage, yet remain a faithful wife to her husband._
I'm surprised no one noticed the logical fallacy here, namely affirming the consequent. The fact (and I agree with Bop that it is a fact) that a woman can be sexually faithful, but unfaithful in other matters, therefore an essentially unfatihful spouse, does not mean that a person can be an essentially faithful spouse and be unfaithful sexually. ANY infidelity in an essential matter creates an essentially unfaithful spouse.
BTW Bop, thanks for not writing "Yo Jeffrey Polet, and Dewy."
I'm surprised no one noticed the logical fallacy here, namely affirming the consequent. The fact (and I agree with Bop that it is a fact) that a woman can be sexually faithful, but unfaithful in other matters, therefore an essentially unfatihful spouse, does not mean that a person can be an essentially faithful spouse and be unfaithful sexually. ANY infidelity in an essential matter creates an essentially unfaithful spouse.
BTW Bop, thanks for not writing "Yo Jeffrey Polet, and Dewy."
3.23.2011 | 1:02pm
Citizen Jerry says:
Joe makes an interesting premise, to be sure -- and it's good advice for young people in their late teens or early 20s. But people who believe there's someone out there for everyone were probably also told that life is fair.
Remaining faithful to your future spouse as you wait ... and wait ... and wait is one thing. But your perspective surely changes once you reach your 40s and beyond and are faced with the prospect of growing old and dying alone.
Remaining faithful to your future spouse as you wait ... and wait ... and wait is one thing. But your perspective surely changes once you reach your 40s and beyond and are faced with the prospect of growing old and dying alone.
3.23.2011 | 1:04pm
Todd says:
"So you believe that single Christians have no moral obligations to their future spouse?"
Not in the way you described it, as limited to sexual expression.
"Do you think that we also don't have any moral obligations to people who will come into existence in the future (e.g., our future children)?"
Often there are consequences to immoral behavior. A drug addict passes on addiction to her unborn child. Those consequences are fairly direct.
A corporation pollutes and passes disease in its neighborhood to children born and living there. Again, a direct cause and effect, even if the suits try to wiggle out of it.
A single man engages in promiscuity. Then he is graced with a conversion experience, goes to confession and is absolved from sin. Inspired, he abstains from sex until he gets married.
Is there some psychological damage he is passing on to his wife and kids? Well, isn't his sin forgiven? Or is he just spiritually healed with a shadow of immoral behavior hanging over his head. Is he somehow tainted by the shadow of his sin spiritually or psychologically? Cher from Moonstruck comes to mind: "Snap out of it!"
Let's say that the man contracts a sexually transmitted disease during his wild days. If it shortens his life to the point where he misses his grandchildren being born, his kids' graduation, his wife's retirement, or their tenth anniversary, then those would be temporal consequences of his sinful acts. What if he passes on a congenital defect to his children? A disease to his wife? All tragic consequences. But I believe there would still be the possibility of redemption.
People should abstain from sinful sexual behavior because of the damage to themselves, their partners, and the community around them. With some sinful behaviors, there are unseen, far-reaching consequences. A bishop pardons a wayward priest and reassigns him, with every good intention of forgiveness and compassion. And yet that action also has consequences: new victims, low clergy morale, financial hardship, defections from the Church, scandal, anger, ears closed to any message of good from the prelate.
It's enough to say that sin has consequences. And that should give us all pause.
Not in the way you described it, as limited to sexual expression.
"Do you think that we also don't have any moral obligations to people who will come into existence in the future (e.g., our future children)?"
Often there are consequences to immoral behavior. A drug addict passes on addiction to her unborn child. Those consequences are fairly direct.
A corporation pollutes and passes disease in its neighborhood to children born and living there. Again, a direct cause and effect, even if the suits try to wiggle out of it.
A single man engages in promiscuity. Then he is graced with a conversion experience, goes to confession and is absolved from sin. Inspired, he abstains from sex until he gets married.
Is there some psychological damage he is passing on to his wife and kids? Well, isn't his sin forgiven? Or is he just spiritually healed with a shadow of immoral behavior hanging over his head. Is he somehow tainted by the shadow of his sin spiritually or psychologically? Cher from Moonstruck comes to mind: "Snap out of it!"
Let's say that the man contracts a sexually transmitted disease during his wild days. If it shortens his life to the point where he misses his grandchildren being born, his kids' graduation, his wife's retirement, or their tenth anniversary, then those would be temporal consequences of his sinful acts. What if he passes on a congenital defect to his children? A disease to his wife? All tragic consequences. But I believe there would still be the possibility of redemption.
People should abstain from sinful sexual behavior because of the damage to themselves, their partners, and the community around them. With some sinful behaviors, there are unseen, far-reaching consequences. A bishop pardons a wayward priest and reassigns him, with every good intention of forgiveness and compassion. And yet that action also has consequences: new victims, low clergy morale, financial hardship, defections from the Church, scandal, anger, ears closed to any message of good from the prelate.
It's enough to say that sin has consequences. And that should give us all pause.
3.23.2011 | 1:08pm
Vader says:
Russell Kirk spoke of the mystical community of souls: Those who have llved before, those now living, and those yet to be born. It's a profound concept, but the interesting thing is that it takes the obligation to future generations and makes it two-way.
3.23.2011 | 1:11pm
Joe Carter says:
The obligations of a widower to the second are the same as to his first -- relative to temporal perspective. Prior to marriage, John's duty to his future wife (Mary) is to remain sexually faithful. But once they have married and she dies, the one-flesh union is dissolved and the temporal perspective shifts. His obligation then becomes to remain faithful to his future wife (Judy).
@Bop ***mean, life is much more rounded, complicated and interesting than a syllogism would suggest.***
Of course I agree, but I don't think I implied otherwise. I don't think taking one aspect of fidelity (sexual fidelity) so that cit an be better scrutinized implies that the other areas are unimportant.
@Jeffrey Polet ***I would take it even further, however, and say that the obligation extends not only to your future spouse, but also to you and your spouse's progeny, to yourself, and to your supporting community.***
I certainly agree, though in our individualist culture it's hard to get people to see the merits of such a claim. The idea that sex is an activity that affects the larger community is hard for many people to wrap their head around.
***My one quibble here is what I take to be a highly romanticized (and Platonic) idea that there is a "soul-mate" out there for each of us. ***
Yeah, I debated even using that term since I think it is misleading. But I thought it might help people who do believe that we have a "soul mate" to see that our actions often betray what we claim to believe.
@Emily *** When I'm married I won't date other men, kiss them, or even spend extended amounts of time alone with them. So shouldn't fidelity to my future spouse depend on my abstaining from those things now, as well?***
You raise a good point. The question is whether dating, kissing, and spending extended amounts of time with the opposite sex are activities that are exclusive to marriage and should be considered regardless of the temporal perspective.
I think spending time with a person should probably be in the exempted class. The needs and dynamics of a marital relationship (e.g., need to promote companionship and friendship within the marriage) seem to be the reasons that we refrain from spending time with other-sex people who are not our spouses. Of course this could just be a cultural bias. Other cultures and other times have considered it prudent to reduce the amount of time single men and women spent in each others company.
As for dating, since the purpose is (or should be) to find a spouse, I think it is reasonable to think it is an activity that can be legitimately engaged in before marriage but must stop (because it is not needed) after the wedding.
Kissing seems to be the one that raises the most intriguing consideration. Presumably, the reason we don't kiss people other than our spouses after the wedding is because it is a sexualized act. If that's the reason, then there may be good reasons not to ever kiss anyone other than the person you will marry.
@largo ***If my current spouse dies and I remarry, am I being unfaithful to my later spouse by virtue(!) of my sexual relationship with my current spouse?***
Good question. I was tempted to address this point in the original article but thought it might be better left for the discussion in the comments.
Let's put this into an example: John is married to Mary. However, if Mary dies, then it would be permissible for him to marry Judy. That's seems unobjectionable.
But if Judy is the "future spouse" of John, does he have a conflicting duty to be faithful? If before she dies he has sex with his wife Mary, wouldn't that be committing "adultery" in regards to Judy?
I would argue that their is no conflict since the obligations of a widower to the second are the same as to his first—relative to temporal perspective. All (almost all?) human obligations are relative to a temporal perspective. For example, if I have an obligation to feed my child, the obligation requires that I do it within a certain timeframe. I can't say that I will fulfill my obligation only in the future since by then she would have starved to death.
Similarly, prior to marriage, John's duty to his future wife (Mary) is to remain sexually faithful. But once they have married and she dies, the one-flesh union is dissolved and the temporal perspective shifts. His obligation then becomes to remain faithful to his future wife (Judy).
(I just noticed that Gregory K. Laughlin makes roughly the same points I make above.)
@Bop ***mean, life is much more rounded, complicated and interesting than a syllogism would suggest.***
Of course I agree, but I don't think I implied otherwise. I don't think taking one aspect of fidelity (sexual fidelity) so that cit an be better scrutinized implies that the other areas are unimportant.
@Jeffrey Polet ***I would take it even further, however, and say that the obligation extends not only to your future spouse, but also to you and your spouse's progeny, to yourself, and to your supporting community.***
I certainly agree, though in our individualist culture it's hard to get people to see the merits of such a claim. The idea that sex is an activity that affects the larger community is hard for many people to wrap their head around.
***My one quibble here is what I take to be a highly romanticized (and Platonic) idea that there is a "soul-mate" out there for each of us. ***
Yeah, I debated even using that term since I think it is misleading. But I thought it might help people who do believe that we have a "soul mate" to see that our actions often betray what we claim to believe.
@Emily *** When I'm married I won't date other men, kiss them, or even spend extended amounts of time alone with them. So shouldn't fidelity to my future spouse depend on my abstaining from those things now, as well?***
You raise a good point. The question is whether dating, kissing, and spending extended amounts of time with the opposite sex are activities that are exclusive to marriage and should be considered regardless of the temporal perspective.
I think spending time with a person should probably be in the exempted class. The needs and dynamics of a marital relationship (e.g., need to promote companionship and friendship within the marriage) seem to be the reasons that we refrain from spending time with other-sex people who are not our spouses. Of course this could just be a cultural bias. Other cultures and other times have considered it prudent to reduce the amount of time single men and women spent in each others company.
As for dating, since the purpose is (or should be) to find a spouse, I think it is reasonable to think it is an activity that can be legitimately engaged in before marriage but must stop (because it is not needed) after the wedding.
Kissing seems to be the one that raises the most intriguing consideration. Presumably, the reason we don't kiss people other than our spouses after the wedding is because it is a sexualized act. If that's the reason, then there may be good reasons not to ever kiss anyone other than the person you will marry.
@largo ***If my current spouse dies and I remarry, am I being unfaithful to my later spouse by virtue(!) of my sexual relationship with my current spouse?***
Good question. I was tempted to address this point in the original article but thought it might be better left for the discussion in the comments.
Let's put this into an example: John is married to Mary. However, if Mary dies, then it would be permissible for him to marry Judy. That's seems unobjectionable.
But if Judy is the "future spouse" of John, does he have a conflicting duty to be faithful? If before she dies he has sex with his wife Mary, wouldn't that be committing "adultery" in regards to Judy?
I would argue that their is no conflict since the obligations of a widower to the second are the same as to his first—relative to temporal perspective. All (almost all?) human obligations are relative to a temporal perspective. For example, if I have an obligation to feed my child, the obligation requires that I do it within a certain timeframe. I can't say that I will fulfill my obligation only in the future since by then she would have starved to death.
Similarly, prior to marriage, John's duty to his future wife (Mary) is to remain sexually faithful. But once they have married and she dies, the one-flesh union is dissolved and the temporal perspective shifts. His obligation then becomes to remain faithful to his future wife (Judy).
(I just noticed that Gregory K. Laughlin makes roughly the same points I make above.)
3.23.2011 | 1:19pm
David B says:
The author, and most of the commentators, have such a different viewpoint from me that I hesitate to comment at all, but I would just like to point out that Mr. Carter's argument, taken to it's logical conclusion, means that you shouldn't hold hands with some you're dating, let alone give them a kiss (and I don't mean a peck, I mean a KISS).
3.23.2011 | 1:20pm
Joe DeVet says:
Regarding the (a,b,c) multiple choice thought experiment, I'm put in mind of Yakov Smirnoff's little riff:
I told my friend I was engaged to be married. He asked me if I had a date for the wedding. Vhat a countrry! Take a date to your own wedding!
But seriously, what a touching and compelling case for a fresh awareness of how deeply the sin of fornication harms others, particularly one's future spouse. I do believe the idea has the power to persuade some who think that their pre-marital sexual sins are somehow of no consequence for their future marital partner.
It wasn't too visible, but the harm to the future spouse is very real. Fornication diminishes one's ability to give totally in marriage, promotes unhealthy comparisons between spouse and former lovers, increases the fear that a third-party relationship might derail the marriage, increases temptations to unchastity in marriage, and increases the chances of an affair once married. If we don't believe our spiritual leaders about such harms, we have social research showing these things to be true.
I confess myself to be appalled at the moral confusion and shallowness of the negative responses to this post. For example, yes, we can and should confess our sins and begin again with a clean slate. (Protestants should reinstate this beautiful sacrament!) However, if one forgets that despite the "clean slate", the wounds of past sins still weaken us, then one forgets an important part of Catholic moral teaching. And if one mocks the use of syllogism to inform a conscience, how do you rescue conscience at all--conscience being a rational function?
I told my friend I was engaged to be married. He asked me if I had a date for the wedding. Vhat a countrry! Take a date to your own wedding!
But seriously, what a touching and compelling case for a fresh awareness of how deeply the sin of fornication harms others, particularly one's future spouse. I do believe the idea has the power to persuade some who think that their pre-marital sexual sins are somehow of no consequence for their future marital partner.
It wasn't too visible, but the harm to the future spouse is very real. Fornication diminishes one's ability to give totally in marriage, promotes unhealthy comparisons between spouse and former lovers, increases the fear that a third-party relationship might derail the marriage, increases temptations to unchastity in marriage, and increases the chances of an affair once married. If we don't believe our spiritual leaders about such harms, we have social research showing these things to be true.
I confess myself to be appalled at the moral confusion and shallowness of the negative responses to this post. For example, yes, we can and should confess our sins and begin again with a clean slate. (Protestants should reinstate this beautiful sacrament!) However, if one forgets that despite the "clean slate", the wounds of past sins still weaken us, then one forgets an important part of Catholic moral teaching. And if one mocks the use of syllogism to inform a conscience, how do you rescue conscience at all--conscience being a rational function?
3.23.2011 | 1:33pm
Joe Carter says:
@David B ***but I would just like to point out that Mr. Carter's argument, taken to it's logical conclusion, means that you shouldn't hold hands with some you're dating, let alone give them a kiss (and I don't mean a peck, I mean a KISS). ***
We have to make a distinction between what is culturally bound and what is tied to sexual relations. In some Arab cultures men hold hands and it is not considered sexual at all. Kissing (or KISSing) seems to fall into the sexual category and so a strong case could be made that we shouldn't engage in it prior to finding our future spouse.
I know that idea would be anathema to most of our culture, but I think it is both logical and romantic.
We have to make a distinction between what is culturally bound and what is tied to sexual relations. In some Arab cultures men hold hands and it is not considered sexual at all. Kissing (or KISSing) seems to fall into the sexual category and so a strong case could be made that we shouldn't engage in it prior to finding our future spouse.
I know that idea would be anathema to most of our culture, but I think it is both logical and romantic.
3.23.2011 | 1:59pm
Bop says:
@Fred,
Thanks for pointing out the logical fallacy. The point I was trying to make is that if one allows that sexual fidelity doesn’t amount to spousal fidelity then one must allow that one may be an essentially faithful spouse without being sexually faithful. I did allow that the “latter may be include the former” but, and this is the essential point, not essentially. It all depends on the married individuals. Trying to legislate for what constitutes true marriage is a bit like trying to legislate for what constitutes true friendship.
BTW Fred, I still await your past requested response.
Thanks for pointing out the logical fallacy. The point I was trying to make is that if one allows that sexual fidelity doesn’t amount to spousal fidelity then one must allow that one may be an essentially faithful spouse without being sexually faithful. I did allow that the “latter may be include the former” but, and this is the essential point, not essentially. It all depends on the married individuals. Trying to legislate for what constitutes true marriage is a bit like trying to legislate for what constitutes true friendship.
BTW Fred, I still await your past requested response.
3.23.2011 | 2:19pm
Nathan Duffy says:
Good post Joe. Although I don't like the film much, but 'Chasing Amy' by Kevin Smith caused me to formulate this same argument (to myself, in response to the film's apparent thesis) about a decade ago. I don't remember the details too vividly but the main 'moral' of the story is that Ben Affleck's character should not have a problem with his current girlfriend's sexual past, and what a fool and hypocrite he is for having feelings of anger, resentment, etc. about it. Now, hypocrite I would agree with, but those feelings, even about past relationships, are quite natural and evidence that we aren't built to function in this polygamous way. The secular response of 'what matters is now', 'i'm with you now', 'I 'love' you now', and that's all that is relevant is false and inadequate and just leads to unhealthy, unfulfilled relationships as we either bury these feelings, or ignore them, or call them foolish when they are not. Again, I found the 'moral' of the film to be profoundly stupid (not to mention the generally raunchiness of the humor), but I actually was glad I watched it as it prompted me to think through the issue in a manner similar to the way that you seem to have done.
3.23.2011 | 2:20pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Gregory, I just finished rereading That Hideous Strength and had the same thought largo did. Attributing generations of genetic steering by God seems an extension of hoe we humans this God "must have" acted, because it just seems to make sense if one follows certain lines of thought. But even the genealogy of Our Lord, recorded retrospectively as important, does not imply that it was unchangeable from the beginning of time.
Fred, I did pick up that logical fallacy of bop's but you beat me to it, and likely did better than I would have with it. Bop seems to have the curious idea that there is some "essential" fidelity that independent of sexual behavior. Something else going on at a personal level, I'll warrant, though I can't tell what.
I'm siding with Irene and Emily on this. Obedience in sexual matters is enjoined upon us without adding this in as an especially strong element. Focusing on faceless future spouses is unlikely to offer much assistance in resisting temptation, but if it is for some, fine, add it in.
I admit, Joe, that I was immediately ill-disposed to your argument because of something you could not have foreseen. I regard curbside recycling as a merely symbolic act of adherence to a vague environmental religion, and thus see it as something between "rendering unto Caeser" and "meat sacrificed to idols." Not your fault that the analogy put me off, perhaps.
Fred, I did pick up that logical fallacy of bop's but you beat me to it, and likely did better than I would have with it. Bop seems to have the curious idea that there is some "essential" fidelity that independent of sexual behavior. Something else going on at a personal level, I'll warrant, though I can't tell what.
I'm siding with Irene and Emily on this. Obedience in sexual matters is enjoined upon us without adding this in as an especially strong element. Focusing on faceless future spouses is unlikely to offer much assistance in resisting temptation, but if it is for some, fine, add it in.
I admit, Joe, that I was immediately ill-disposed to your argument because of something you could not have foreseen. I regard curbside recycling as a merely symbolic act of adherence to a vague environmental religion, and thus see it as something between "rendering unto Caeser" and "meat sacrificed to idols." Not your fault that the analogy put me off, perhaps.
3.23.2011 | 2:47pm
mike says:
I took Joe to mean that, even in the absence of positive harm from these sins of the flesh, there can still be huge negative losses that people don't see. Alot of people screw around and basically use others for their own gratification, yet still believe they will suddenly become different people when it comes time to get married.
3.23.2011 | 2:58pm
GlennB says:
Missing in the discussion is the way one is sinning against the person with whom one is having non-marital sexual relations. Such behavior does not just harm oneself and have implications for ones future spouse. You are engaging in an act for a purpose other than one of the ends for which it was created. In a certain sense you are engaging in the physical expression that seals a promise and commitment, as a handshake used to do in a business deal. The physical expression seals the verbal, and has meaning. Like the Lord's Supper. But in this case you are actually lying to and betraying another person because your physical expression is disingenuous. Like Judas' kiss.
3.23.2011 | 3:16pm
Richard M says:
@bop: "The point I was trying to make is that if one allows that sexual fidelity doesn’t amount to spousal fidelity then one must allow that one may be an essentially faithful spouse without being sexually faithful. I did allow that the “latter may be include the former” but, and this is the essential point, not essentially."
But this begs the question, doesn't it? Even today, I think most people would concede the point (regardless of whether they lived it in practice) that sexual fidelity is, essentially, a subset of fidelity, period. That it is *impossible* to be faithful if you are not being sexually faithful.
It does not follow at all that because one may be faithless in some non-sexual sense despite being sexually faithful that the converse must be true as well - unless you want to supply a missing premise to your syllogism. Seriously: What sensible person would consider her spouse to be "faithful" when he is having sex with another woman? Outside the tiny open marriage community, I doubt you'll find such people. The rest will scream, throw objects, and, quite likely, file for divorce.
"It all depends on the married individuals. Trying to legislate for what constitutes true marriage is a bit like trying to legislate for what constitutes true friendship."
But the Catholic Church, and indeed most Christian churches (and let us include Jews) do just this, and have been doing so for many centuries.
But this begs the question, doesn't it? Even today, I think most people would concede the point (regardless of whether they lived it in practice) that sexual fidelity is, essentially, a subset of fidelity, period. That it is *impossible* to be faithful if you are not being sexually faithful.
It does not follow at all that because one may be faithless in some non-sexual sense despite being sexually faithful that the converse must be true as well - unless you want to supply a missing premise to your syllogism. Seriously: What sensible person would consider her spouse to be "faithful" when he is having sex with another woman? Outside the tiny open marriage community, I doubt you'll find such people. The rest will scream, throw objects, and, quite likely, file for divorce.
"It all depends on the married individuals. Trying to legislate for what constitutes true marriage is a bit like trying to legislate for what constitutes true friendship."
But the Catholic Church, and indeed most Christian churches (and let us include Jews) do just this, and have been doing so for many centuries.
3.23.2011 | 3:24pm
DBP says:
"The point I was trying to make is that if one allows that sexual fidelity doesn’t amount to spousal fidelity then one must allow that one may be an essentially faithful spouse without being sexually faithful. I did allow that the “latter may be include the former” but, and this is the essential point, not essentially. It all depends on the married individuals. Trying to legislate for what constitutes true marriage is a bit like trying to legislate for what constitutes true friendship."
I'm surprised by your persistence here. Perhaps this will clarify things: Sexual fidelity is a necessary but insufficient condition of marital fidelity. One may be sexually faithful to a spouse yet unfaithful in other significant ways. However, sexual infidelity, regardless of other factors, is enough break faith within a marriage. Full stop.
The only thing that "depends on the married individuals" is whether or not they are Christians--a fundamental premise of the article. Any who hold Hebrews 13:4 to be both descriptive and prescriptive have the essential importance of sexual fidelity within marriage amply defined.
I'm surprised by your persistence here. Perhaps this will clarify things: Sexual fidelity is a necessary but insufficient condition of marital fidelity. One may be sexually faithful to a spouse yet unfaithful in other significant ways. However, sexual infidelity, regardless of other factors, is enough break faith within a marriage. Full stop.
The only thing that "depends on the married individuals" is whether or not they are Christians--a fundamental premise of the article. Any who hold Hebrews 13:4 to be both descriptive and prescriptive have the essential importance of sexual fidelity within marriage amply defined.
3.23.2011 | 3:36pm
Ron says:
I can appreciate the author's argument but I wonder if his argument would be more complete within the context of community. No man or woman is an island. Sexual mores grow out of what is expected from family/community. Unfortunately, the author's point makes sense in a country where family bonds continue to fall apart or become irrelevant. So the focus is somewhat on the self.
When placed in the proper context of family/community, the argument becomes about legacy. This is something I am talking to my 13 yr old right now. At 13, he now represents our family in an official sense when he is with us and when he is not. Other men who are family and friends are planning to affirm my approach with him so that he sees the larger picture. When supported by a strong family/community, I believe these ideas are more possible.
When placed in the proper context of family/community, the argument becomes about legacy. This is something I am talking to my 13 yr old right now. At 13, he now represents our family in an official sense when he is with us and when he is not. Other men who are family and friends are planning to affirm my approach with him so that he sees the larger picture. When supported by a strong family/community, I believe these ideas are more possible.
3.23.2011 | 3:48pm
Richard M says:
@DBP: "I'm surprised by your persistence here. Perhaps this will clarify things: Sexual fidelity is a necessary but insufficient condition of marital fidelity. One may be sexually faithful to a spouse yet unfaithful in other significant ways. However, sexual infidelity, regardless of other factors, is enough break faith within a marriage. Full stop."
Thank you for explaining it better than I did. Tetigisti acu.
Thank you for explaining it better than I did. Tetigisti acu.
3.23.2011 | 4:11pm
Bop says:
@Richard M:
“But this begs the question, doesn't it? Even today, I think most people would concede the point (regardless of whether they lived it in practice) that sexual fidelity is, essentially, a subset of fidelity, period. That it is *impossible* to be faithful if you are not being sexually faithful.”
I’m not sure that it begs the question so much as it shows how inadequate the popular, rote answer is. Simply by looking around me I see that most married people who have affairs would be loathe to break up their marriages because of their extra-marital sexual activity. If confronted with the choice to give up the extra-marital sex or their marriage, most of these would give up the former. And I am sure that there are many men and women in marriages who are aware that their spouses engage in extra-marital sex but who still remain committed to their marriages. If you accept that this is true, then you must accept that there can be marital faithfulness without sexual faithfulness. I am not saying that for any given couple sexual fidelity may not be in fact, and in faithfulness, considered a necessary component of marital fidelity. What I am saying, though, is that there are couples for whom martial fidelity exists while sexual fidelity does not, and that consequently sexual fidelity is not essential to marital fidelity. Ask Karl Barth.
“But this begs the question, doesn't it? Even today, I think most people would concede the point (regardless of whether they lived it in practice) that sexual fidelity is, essentially, a subset of fidelity, period. That it is *impossible* to be faithful if you are not being sexually faithful.”
I’m not sure that it begs the question so much as it shows how inadequate the popular, rote answer is. Simply by looking around me I see that most married people who have affairs would be loathe to break up their marriages because of their extra-marital sexual activity. If confronted with the choice to give up the extra-marital sex or their marriage, most of these would give up the former. And I am sure that there are many men and women in marriages who are aware that their spouses engage in extra-marital sex but who still remain committed to their marriages. If you accept that this is true, then you must accept that there can be marital faithfulness without sexual faithfulness. I am not saying that for any given couple sexual fidelity may not be in fact, and in faithfulness, considered a necessary component of marital fidelity. What I am saying, though, is that there are couples for whom martial fidelity exists while sexual fidelity does not, and that consequently sexual fidelity is not essential to marital fidelity. Ask Karl Barth.
3.23.2011 | 4:22pm
Joe Carter: "For example, I believe that Christian men and women who are unmarried (and are not called to a life of chastity) have certain present obligations to the person who will be their future spouse."
I would say preceding this very important obligation is the joyful obligation to joyfully obey God. God commands His followers to not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, a marriage between one man and one woman.
I.e., fornication is a sin.
Heterosexual fornication is a sin. Christians are obligated to not sin. And when they do, they are to repent.
Why complicate the matter? Scripture is both clear and simple on the matter.
I would say preceding this very important obligation is the joyful obligation to joyfully obey God. God commands His followers to not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, a marriage between one man and one woman.
I.e., fornication is a sin.
Heterosexual fornication is a sin. Christians are obligated to not sin. And when they do, they are to repent.
Why complicate the matter? Scripture is both clear and simple on the matter.
3.23.2011 | 4:28pm
Richard M says:
@Bop: "Simply by looking around me I see that most married people who have affairs would be loathe to break up their marriages because of their extra-marital sexual activity."
I suggest that this merely shows that the persons in question recognize that their marriage is a clear good, and that their adultery is not. They continue to engage in the sin knowing it is such, despite their reason, because their will is disordered; or they somehow convince themselves that *this* is the relationship they were meant for and subsequently abandon their current marriage, no matter the damage done to their present spouse and children (if any).
Karl Barth's relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum is neither here nor there. If we posit (as I think I probably would) that he was unfaithful to his wife in his relationship with "Lollo" despite not actually having sex with the latter (at least so far as we know), it hardly follows that had he been "loyal" and dutiful to his wife while having a purely sexual relationship with Lollo, he would have been in any sense "faithful" to his wife. I can't think his wife would have thought so.
I grant readily your point that faithfulness can take many forms besides the sexual; but sexual infidelity must necessarily *always* constitute unfaithfulness, period. This is a conclusion deeply rooted in human culture, long before Christian revelation. And there are good, practical reasons for that.
I suggest that this merely shows that the persons in question recognize that their marriage is a clear good, and that their adultery is not. They continue to engage in the sin knowing it is such, despite their reason, because their will is disordered; or they somehow convince themselves that *this* is the relationship they were meant for and subsequently abandon their current marriage, no matter the damage done to their present spouse and children (if any).
Karl Barth's relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum is neither here nor there. If we posit (as I think I probably would) that he was unfaithful to his wife in his relationship with "Lollo" despite not actually having sex with the latter (at least so far as we know), it hardly follows that had he been "loyal" and dutiful to his wife while having a purely sexual relationship with Lollo, he would have been in any sense "faithful" to his wife. I can't think his wife would have thought so.
I grant readily your point that faithfulness can take many forms besides the sexual; but sexual infidelity must necessarily *always* constitute unfaithfulness, period. This is a conclusion deeply rooted in human culture, long before Christian revelation. And there are good, practical reasons for that.
3.23.2011 | 4:38pm
Don Roberto says:
Thanks for this post, Mr. Carter. I like your comments, Jeffrey, Gregory, Sally, et al. The fornicator may be forgiven, but the damage done by the sin remains. We may see only the present and a vague image of the past, but God sees all and makes the law for our good. Who could argue that our souls—and the neurochecmistry of the brain—are not changed by intimacy? The high rate of divorce is certainly related to the inevitably weaker bonds of second-hand love.
At my house we regularly pray for the future spouses of my children. And though my wife thinks it an exaggeration, I warn them that kissing should be off limits. When fluids are exchanged, this is a *highly* sexual act. (There good reason to call it "getting to first base.")
†
At my house we regularly pray for the future spouses of my children. And though my wife thinks it an exaggeration, I warn them that kissing should be off limits. When fluids are exchanged, this is a *highly* sexual act. (There good reason to call it "getting to first base.")
†
3.23.2011 | 4:44pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@Assistant Village Idiot, who wrote: "But even the genealogy of Our Lord, recorded retrospectively as important, does not imply that it was unchangeable from the beginning of time."
Indeed, we do not know that. What we do know is that what Onan, Tamar and Judah intended for evil in their various acts recorded in Genesis, God used for good. That He did so, however, does not exculpate their evil deeds. The issue under discussion is not whether God may use the results of our evil deeds to work good but whether our actions that have the potential to harm others, whether those others are living when we act or not, are sinful. I used the examples of Genesis 38 and the narrative from "That Hideous Strength" to illustrate the case that they are. Nothing more was intended than that.
Indeed, we do not know that. What we do know is that what Onan, Tamar and Judah intended for evil in their various acts recorded in Genesis, God used for good. That He did so, however, does not exculpate their evil deeds. The issue under discussion is not whether God may use the results of our evil deeds to work good but whether our actions that have the potential to harm others, whether those others are living when we act or not, are sinful. I used the examples of Genesis 38 and the narrative from "That Hideous Strength" to illustrate the case that they are. Nothing more was intended than that.
3.23.2011 | 5:14pm
Bop says:
@Richard M:
“I grant readily your point that faithfulness can take many forms besides the sexual; but sexual infidelity must necessarily *always* constitute unfaithfulness, period.”
The difference between me and you, as I see it, is that I base my views on the reality that I actually encounter. You, on the other hand, would chop reality up to fit your Full Stop dogmatism and impose an alternative reality. Take, for example, what you say:
“I suggest that this merely shows that the persons in question recognize that their marriage is a clear good, and that their adultery is not.”
Why would you suggest this and not suggest that it may also mean that these people are committed to their marriage, that they enjoy a varied sex life, but that they also have their priorities right and recognize that if it came to it their marital commitment would be primary? Why does it have to be as you say, that they recognize that their adultery is not good? Do you really believe that people who commit adultery believe it is bad? That they believe that they are bad because the commit adultery?
As to your chopping reality with respect to Barth. If we went on your quaint and reality dodging “as far as we know,” then we could safely say that there is hardly no adultery at all. Barth was a highly insightful, self-aware theologian who is an example of one who remained maritally faithful over the course of 35 years while engaging in extra-marital sex. An example to all of us against Full Stop glibness.
“I grant readily your point that faithfulness can take many forms besides the sexual; but sexual infidelity must necessarily *always* constitute unfaithfulness, period.”
The difference between me and you, as I see it, is that I base my views on the reality that I actually encounter. You, on the other hand, would chop reality up to fit your Full Stop dogmatism and impose an alternative reality. Take, for example, what you say:
“I suggest that this merely shows that the persons in question recognize that their marriage is a clear good, and that their adultery is not.”
Why would you suggest this and not suggest that it may also mean that these people are committed to their marriage, that they enjoy a varied sex life, but that they also have their priorities right and recognize that if it came to it their marital commitment would be primary? Why does it have to be as you say, that they recognize that their adultery is not good? Do you really believe that people who commit adultery believe it is bad? That they believe that they are bad because the commit adultery?
As to your chopping reality with respect to Barth. If we went on your quaint and reality dodging “as far as we know,” then we could safely say that there is hardly no adultery at all. Barth was a highly insightful, self-aware theologian who is an example of one who remained maritally faithful over the course of 35 years while engaging in extra-marital sex. An example to all of us against Full Stop glibness.
3.23.2011 | 5:39pm
andrew says:
joe asks: but could it be the case that we also have specific obligations to specific individuals in the future?
my answer is a resounding "no." i once talked to a friend who was hesitant to commit more permanently to his girlfriend at the time because he was moving to paris in the summer and didn't want to "mess up a potential romance with a cute french woman."
my reply was that this "cute french woman" didn't yet exist and that acting now on the basis of some hypothetical future person was foolishness. he agreed.
which means i think we have responsibilities to "future people" in the general but not in the specific sense. "specific individuals in the future" may never exist, while "future people in general" are guaranteed to exist (unless another flood of noahic proportions occurs).
there are, of course, other good reasons for being chaste, both before and after marriage.
my answer is a resounding "no." i once talked to a friend who was hesitant to commit more permanently to his girlfriend at the time because he was moving to paris in the summer and didn't want to "mess up a potential romance with a cute french woman."
my reply was that this "cute french woman" didn't yet exist and that acting now on the basis of some hypothetical future person was foolishness. he agreed.
which means i think we have responsibilities to "future people" in the general but not in the specific sense. "specific individuals in the future" may never exist, while "future people in general" are guaranteed to exist (unless another flood of noahic proportions occurs).
there are, of course, other good reasons for being chaste, both before and after marriage.
3.23.2011 | 6:35pm
Paul says:
@ Bop: "The difference between me and you, as I see it, is that I base my views on the reality that I actually encounter. You, on the other hand, would chop reality up to fit your Full Stop dogmatism and impose an alternative reality."
Bop, as long as we're leaving behind arid dogmatism and getting down to flesh & blood specifics, I'm wondering, are you married? If so, does your wife know you're writing these comments?
Bop, as long as we're leaving behind arid dogmatism and getting down to flesh & blood specifics, I'm wondering, are you married? If so, does your wife know you're writing these comments?
3.23.2011 | 6:48pm
Michael says:
I agree with the following: Sex is never individual but affects the larger community in a number of ways. Sex is sinful outside marriage. When outside marriage, sex disorders the individuals and the larger community, affecting psychology and relationships. It’s impossible to be a Christian and be ignorant of all these truths.
Still, I’m astonished that there’s not more discussion beyond these simple truths. I’ve had premarital sex, had an affair, and am married to my second wife. I’m the fifteenth notch on her bedpost, while she’s only the second notch on mine.
The previous discussion on this thread would create the expectation that my marriage would be haunted by fears of infidelity, crippled by disease, and doomed to temptation and failure. Happily, all of those expectations are wrong.
The kind of premarital sex I had with my first wife should have tipped me off that something was wrong. A stereotypical good Catholic girl, she never shook the feeling her father had instilled in her that she was of little worth, that girls shouldn’t be smart, that intellectuals were elitist frauds. Convinced she was unlovable, she never recognized what love was. In the meantime, she left the church, finding nothing there that felt real to her. Filled with romantic faith that true love would win out over all, I persisted for nearly twenty years. Gradually, however, another side of my mind fantasized about a way out, which resulted in a brief, unconsummated but powerful affair.
Slapping the lid back on as a good Christian should, I wrung another seven years out of the marriage before my wife declared herself uninterested in marriage. I spent a year grieving, not realizing that she had, in fact, given me a second start in life. After a couple of years of dating, I married the woman I had had that brief affair with, and I’ve never been happier, more fulfilled, or a better member of the community.
Despite or perhaps because of her extensive sexual history, my second wife brings great joy to our marriage, filling it with a sexual and emotional intimacy that I had always hoped would gradually emerge in my first marriage. There are no STDs or the psychological damage other posters have described. There’s no guilt or suspicion or jealousy. We’ve been too happy these last fifteen years raising children and building the present to care much about the past.
And I should add that there’s been no come-to-Jesus moment, no conversion point. While my first wife dropped out of the church, my second wife and I have been regular churchgoers since childhood. Faith has been with us every step of the way, even during our sexual sinning.
It’s hard to point at my adultery and see it only as a sin and not as something more complex than that. After all, it brought me a real wife, children, and a happy marriage that has been a boon to my neighbors and friends.
Still, I’m astonished that there’s not more discussion beyond these simple truths. I’ve had premarital sex, had an affair, and am married to my second wife. I’m the fifteenth notch on her bedpost, while she’s only the second notch on mine.
The previous discussion on this thread would create the expectation that my marriage would be haunted by fears of infidelity, crippled by disease, and doomed to temptation and failure. Happily, all of those expectations are wrong.
The kind of premarital sex I had with my first wife should have tipped me off that something was wrong. A stereotypical good Catholic girl, she never shook the feeling her father had instilled in her that she was of little worth, that girls shouldn’t be smart, that intellectuals were elitist frauds. Convinced she was unlovable, she never recognized what love was. In the meantime, she left the church, finding nothing there that felt real to her. Filled with romantic faith that true love would win out over all, I persisted for nearly twenty years. Gradually, however, another side of my mind fantasized about a way out, which resulted in a brief, unconsummated but powerful affair.
Slapping the lid back on as a good Christian should, I wrung another seven years out of the marriage before my wife declared herself uninterested in marriage. I spent a year grieving, not realizing that she had, in fact, given me a second start in life. After a couple of years of dating, I married the woman I had had that brief affair with, and I’ve never been happier, more fulfilled, or a better member of the community.
Despite or perhaps because of her extensive sexual history, my second wife brings great joy to our marriage, filling it with a sexual and emotional intimacy that I had always hoped would gradually emerge in my first marriage. There are no STDs or the psychological damage other posters have described. There’s no guilt or suspicion or jealousy. We’ve been too happy these last fifteen years raising children and building the present to care much about the past.
And I should add that there’s been no come-to-Jesus moment, no conversion point. While my first wife dropped out of the church, my second wife and I have been regular churchgoers since childhood. Faith has been with us every step of the way, even during our sexual sinning.
It’s hard to point at my adultery and see it only as a sin and not as something more complex than that. After all, it brought me a real wife, children, and a happy marriage that has been a boon to my neighbors and friends.
3.23.2011 | 7:20pm
Nathan Duffy says:
@Truth Unites - While what you say is true, I don't see how Joe's argument complicates the matter. God's Law is handed down for our benefit, so if there are many rational reasons why that law makes sense then it is fine to point them out, as Joe has done. No, it isn't important that we understand all of God's reasons or purposes in order to obey, but if we can identify some of the consequences of sin and point them out it doesn't complicate things. It just confirms that God is wise.
Not to self promote, but I blogged a longer response to this post (essentially an extrapolation of my first comment) here: http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2011/03/moral-obligations-to-specific-future.html
Not to self promote, but I blogged a longer response to this post (essentially an extrapolation of my first comment) here: http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2011/03/moral-obligations-to-specific-future.html
3.23.2011 | 10:15pm
Bop says:
Paul,
Arid is your word. Do you associate all dogmatism with aridity? And why do you assume that if I were married it would be to a wife? As it happens I am married and have been for almost thirty years. And for almost twenty years my spouse had engaged extra-maritally. My spouse does not know that I am writing these comments.
Now Paul, is your arid presumption satisfied? Do you feel vindicated in your wondering?
Arid is your word. Do you associate all dogmatism with aridity? And why do you assume that if I were married it would be to a wife? As it happens I am married and have been for almost thirty years. And for almost twenty years my spouse had engaged extra-maritally. My spouse does not know that I am writing these comments.
Now Paul, is your arid presumption satisfied? Do you feel vindicated in your wondering?
3.24.2011 | 6:41am
Sue Sims says:
A good article - and some useful comments - but a couple of nit-picks with definitions:
All Christians - indeed, all men* - are called to chastity - the state of abstinence from sexual activity if unmarried, and faithfulness to one's spouse if married. Some are called to celibacy - refraining from marriage. Sex before one is married isn't adultery but fornication: adultery is reserved for sexual activity with someone other than one's spouse. So your 'cheating cad' is a fornicator, not an adulterer.
*This, as was standard before the feminist attack on language, includes both sexes.
All Christians - indeed, all men* - are called to chastity - the state of abstinence from sexual activity if unmarried, and faithfulness to one's spouse if married. Some are called to celibacy - refraining from marriage. Sex before one is married isn't adultery but fornication: adultery is reserved for sexual activity with someone other than one's spouse. So your 'cheating cad' is a fornicator, not an adulterer.
*This, as was standard before the feminist attack on language, includes both sexes.
3.24.2011 | 11:57am
Audrey says:
I've been thinking about this topic for a few days, after I saw the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," in which a southern Christian woman was portrayed as an adulteress who apparently had no qualms about her behavior. Indeed, she called Rep. Wilson's secretaries "sluts". I guess money and power covers a multitude of sins.
Anyway, after seeing the movie I began to wonder why more people don't see that fooling around is detrimental to one's own relationships and society in general (not to mention one's own soul). People are quite fervent about the danger to self and others of smoking, but when it comes to passing around the clap, or genital warts, or unwanted offspring, or kisses you've promised to someone else, well, who are we to judge?
I've been married eight years, and we both waited. I had had one romantic relationship before that which did not "go all the way" but got very close on numerous occasions and sometimes I think it affected me just as much as if it had. The comparisons, the unwanted intrusions into my mental space... If I were able to approach my husband as he is without comparing or feeling guilty for past experiences, I think marital relations would be the absolute most joyful thing ever created by God for us to enjoy. And it is - but it would be even MORE so. We're all missing out on this due to our fallen world.
Although I don't like all of Christopher West's formulations on the Theology of the Body, there's one I do like, which is the idea of being able to say "no". Society seems to say that we should be able to say "yes" to whatever we want. And wouldn't that be nice? That would seem to give us a sense of total freedom. But there are certain things we cannot say "yes" to without also having said "no" to something else. And if we're not able or willing to say "no" then we CAN'T say "yes", and then we're really not free. If I can't say "no" to other men, then am I really able to say "yes" to my spouse? I do wonder how many people get into marriage without realizing they are unable to keep the promises they make at the altar because they've never practiced it? Our society says to practice the "sex" part before marriage to make sure we're compatible. Our faith suggests the opposite - practice the "faithful" part to make sure you can actually make your vows and enjoy the fruits of an exclusive relationship. These fruits are only available by saying "no" to many other fruits that are "good and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom."
I agree with Joe Carter and others that this suggests a vastly different attitude to sex and courtship than what current society finds acceptable. But at a recent discussion at the lunch table with several young women, most of them said that it is impossible to wait until marriage to have sex because then there'd be no available men left. Another irony that feminism hath wrought - from choice to non-choice. One told me her current relationship was "not very sexual" because her boyfriend is very ambitious and afraid of pregnancy right now. She remarked on how the relationship seemed more "mature" because they were getting to know one another better. (!)
@bop. Surveys have shown that most men consider physical adultery to be the worst kind of unfaithfulness, and women consider emotional unfaithfulness to be the worst. Both undermine marriage, and the marriage commitment, in my opinion. I wonder though, if you consider marital commitment to be merely the absence of divorce?
Anyway, after seeing the movie I began to wonder why more people don't see that fooling around is detrimental to one's own relationships and society in general (not to mention one's own soul). People are quite fervent about the danger to self and others of smoking, but when it comes to passing around the clap, or genital warts, or unwanted offspring, or kisses you've promised to someone else, well, who are we to judge?
I've been married eight years, and we both waited. I had had one romantic relationship before that which did not "go all the way" but got very close on numerous occasions and sometimes I think it affected me just as much as if it had. The comparisons, the unwanted intrusions into my mental space... If I were able to approach my husband as he is without comparing or feeling guilty for past experiences, I think marital relations would be the absolute most joyful thing ever created by God for us to enjoy. And it is - but it would be even MORE so. We're all missing out on this due to our fallen world.
Although I don't like all of Christopher West's formulations on the Theology of the Body, there's one I do like, which is the idea of being able to say "no". Society seems to say that we should be able to say "yes" to whatever we want. And wouldn't that be nice? That would seem to give us a sense of total freedom. But there are certain things we cannot say "yes" to without also having said "no" to something else. And if we're not able or willing to say "no" then we CAN'T say "yes", and then we're really not free. If I can't say "no" to other men, then am I really able to say "yes" to my spouse? I do wonder how many people get into marriage without realizing they are unable to keep the promises they make at the altar because they've never practiced it? Our society says to practice the "sex" part before marriage to make sure we're compatible. Our faith suggests the opposite - practice the "faithful" part to make sure you can actually make your vows and enjoy the fruits of an exclusive relationship. These fruits are only available by saying "no" to many other fruits that are "good and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom."
I agree with Joe Carter and others that this suggests a vastly different attitude to sex and courtship than what current society finds acceptable. But at a recent discussion at the lunch table with several young women, most of them said that it is impossible to wait until marriage to have sex because then there'd be no available men left. Another irony that feminism hath wrought - from choice to non-choice. One told me her current relationship was "not very sexual" because her boyfriend is very ambitious and afraid of pregnancy right now. She remarked on how the relationship seemed more "mature" because they were getting to know one another better. (!)
@bop. Surveys have shown that most men consider physical adultery to be the worst kind of unfaithfulness, and women consider emotional unfaithfulness to be the worst. Both undermine marriage, and the marriage commitment, in my opinion. I wonder though, if you consider marital commitment to be merely the absence of divorce?
3.24.2011 | 12:18pm
Kathryn Judson says:
Today's Family Talk broadcast I think rounds out this discussion nicely. It featured an interview with Mrs. Elisabeth Eliot, author of Passion & Purity: http://www.myfamilytalk.com/Broadcasts/Broadcast.aspx?i=05a9925c-df70-4320-97a8-03741b7fbe86.
3.24.2011 | 6:11pm
Steve Nicoloso says:
Thanks, Sue for that clarification, tho' I'd hardly call it a nit that you've picked. To allow for the possibility that some "are not called to a life of chastity" makes about as much sense some not being called to a life of honesty or charity or holiness. As with the rest, the call to chastity is universal. And I'm quite surprised that someone with as obviously powerful an intellect as Mr. Carter would make such a mistake.
As for confusing the "7th commandment" for the 6th and 9th, now that's a nit.
As for confusing the "7th commandment" for the 6th and 9th, now that's a nit.
3.25.2011 | 4:20am
edmond says:
Is it me or are there others here who think there is no such thing as being a little
faithful or partly faithful. If I pour milk in my cup of coffee can I still say that the coffee is still black?
Marital fidelity necesarily includes sexual fidelity. For Joe, pre-marital celibacy for a future spouse has its points, my only problem with this is how do you know when and if it is the right one. What if you found out after the fact, that your "soulmate" wasn't what he/she was all you thought she would be? Or worse still what if during your marriage you evolved into someone who now has new ideals? Wouldn't it be more defensible to
say I am saving myself only for the person I commit to staying married with?
faithful or partly faithful. If I pour milk in my cup of coffee can I still say that the coffee is still black?
Marital fidelity necesarily includes sexual fidelity. For Joe, pre-marital celibacy for a future spouse has its points, my only problem with this is how do you know when and if it is the right one. What if you found out after the fact, that your "soulmate" wasn't what he/she was all you thought she would be? Or worse still what if during your marriage you evolved into someone who now has new ideals? Wouldn't it be more defensible to
say I am saving myself only for the person I commit to staying married with?
3.25.2011 | 4:31pm
Bop says:
Audrey.
Two men, A and B, in two different marriages. Both are sexually constant to their wives and the behaviour of both to their wives is impeccably decorous, indeed, to an outsider their behaviour is identical. Yet in truth, A is maritally faithful and B is not, because A cares for his wife as a wife and as a woman, and it is this care and concern for her that motivates his behaviour towards her, whereas B does not care for his wife as a woman and wife but behaves towards her as he does merely as a matter of his own convenience. B’s motivation for his behaviour to his wife is purely selfish.
Now it may well be that A discretely starts to take sex with other women purely to satisfy a varied appetite without it affecting his concern for his wife. Who would you prefer to be married to, A or B?
Two men, A and B, in two different marriages. Both are sexually constant to their wives and the behaviour of both to their wives is impeccably decorous, indeed, to an outsider their behaviour is identical. Yet in truth, A is maritally faithful and B is not, because A cares for his wife as a wife and as a woman, and it is this care and concern for her that motivates his behaviour towards her, whereas B does not care for his wife as a woman and wife but behaves towards her as he does merely as a matter of his own convenience. B’s motivation for his behaviour to his wife is purely selfish.
Now it may well be that A discretely starts to take sex with other women purely to satisfy a varied appetite without it affecting his concern for his wife. Who would you prefer to be married to, A or B?
3.26.2011 | 12:57pm
Jim says:
This is a silly argument. First, marriage is inherently a covenant; covenants are intentional statements of relationship. Infidelity is violation of the covenant. In the example given (before/at/after) marriage, no covenant exists before the relationship exists, therefore it's not possible to violate the covenant; it's senseless to speak of pre-marital infidelity. Second, the argument assumes everyone will get married; not everyone does. Again, there can't be a covenant violation of a covenant which never exists.
There are lots of good reasons to restrain sexual expression outside of covenanted relationships. Morally, the most significant is that the Word of God clearly prescribes covenant as the pattern for intimate relationship. We are to be like God with humanity, like Christ with the church, in our intimate relationships.
This is a fundamental argument for legalizing gay and lesbian marriage: current law in some states interferes with gay and lesbian Christians creating covenant relationships.
There are lots of good reasons to restrain sexual expression outside of covenanted relationships. Morally, the most significant is that the Word of God clearly prescribes covenant as the pattern for intimate relationship. We are to be like God with humanity, like Christ with the church, in our intimate relationships.
This is a fundamental argument for legalizing gay and lesbian marriage: current law in some states interferes with gay and lesbian Christians creating covenant relationships.
5.25.2011 | 10:11am
Heide Solar says:
I suggest that this merely shows that the persons in question recognize that their marriage is a clear good, and that their adultery is not. They continue to engage in the sin knowing it is such, despite their reason, because their will is disordered; or they somehow convince themselves that *this* is the relationship they were meant for and subsequently abandon their current marriage, no matter the damage done to their present spouse and children (if any). I admit, Joe, that I was immediately ill-disposed to your argument because of something you could not have foreseen. I regard curbside recycling as a merely symbolic act of adherence to a vague environmental religion, and thus see it as something between "rendering unto Caeser" and "meat sacrificed to idols." Not your fault that the analogy put me off, perhaps.
A single person engaging in sex sins against him or herself, as well as against the sexual partner. And there are other culpabilities connected to giving scandal, possibly catching diseases, and the psychological damage. So for these reasons, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Pretty much because God has said so.
A person may repent of such behavior, go to confession, reform her or his life, then marry. There is no sin as such against the spouse, is there?
There are enough good reasons to keep sexual intercourse in marriage. We don't need stretchy philosophical reasons. We also don't need to stack the deck against people who misbehaved, then reformed. Because we know that with God all things are possible, even metanoia and forgiveness.