ADULTERY, FORNICATION, DIVORCE, AND CHASTITY ACCORDING TO SACRED SCRIPTURE

Catholic teaching on chastity, adultery, fornication, and the indissolubility of marriage, with the necessary clarifications to ensure that the statements correspond precisely to Sacred Scripture.

1. Adultery

Adultery consists in engaging in sexual relations with someone other than one's own spouse when a valid marriage exists. It is a sin gravely contrary to marital fidelity and to the Sixth Commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18).

Our Lord Jesus Christ confirms the gravity of this sin:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28).

Christ condemns not only the external act but also deliberate inward consent to impure desire.

Saint Paul clearly teaches that adultery is incompatible with salvation as long as the sinner voluntarily persists in it:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

And again:

“For be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or covetous person—that is, an idolater—has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5).

Scripture, therefore, does not present adultery as a minor or merely private failing. It is a grave sin which, if deliberately persisted in without repentance, excludes a person from the Kingdom of God.

2. Fornication

Sacred Scripture frequently uses the term fornication to designate illicit sexual relations outside marriage.

Saint Paul says:

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5).

And he adds:

“For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thessalonians 4:7).

Therefore, sexual relations between people who are not united in a valid marriage contradict the order established by God. Marriage is the proper context for sexual union.

Saint Paul is absolutely explicit:

“Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own? You were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:18–20).

For this reason, the unmarried Christian is called to live chastely, abstaining from sexual relations and refusing deliberate consent to impure desires.

3. The Chastity of the Unmarried

Christian chastity does not mean merely refraining physically from sexual relations. It also includes ordering one's thoughts, desires, glances, conversations, and actions according to the will of God.

Our Lord Jesus Christ taught:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28).

Saint Paul exhorts us:

“Put to death, therefore, what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5).

And also:

“But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor foolish talk, nor crude joking, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving” (Ephesians 5:3–4).

The unmarried Christian, therefore, is called to live chastely, keeping both body and soul for God and deliberately avoiding whatever leads to sins against purity.

4. Marriage and Fidelity

Marriage is not merely a romantic relationship. From the beginning, God established a union between man and woman characterized by exclusivity and fidelity.

Genesis states:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

Our Lord Jesus Christ uses this very text to teach the indissolubility of marriage:

“Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4–6).

Marriage, therefore, requires fidelity for as long as both spouses are alive.

5. Divorce and a New Union

The teaching of Jesus Christ is particularly clear:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Saint Mark conveys the same teaching:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12).

And Saint Paul teaches:

“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10–11).

Separation between spouses may occur under certain circumstances, but separation does not automatically make someone free to marry another person if that individual remains bound by a valid marriage.

Therefore, as long as one's spouse is alive and the valid marriage bond remains, a new sexual or marital union constitutes adultery.

Saint Paul explains this by means of an analogy involving the marriage bond:

“Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is released from the law concerning her husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2–3).

6. “Until Death Do Us Part”

Sacred Scripture presents the marriage bond as enduring throughout the spouses' lives.

Saint Paul states:

“A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives” (Romans 7:2).

And regarding Christian marriage:

“For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control” (1 Corinthians 7:4–5).

Marital fidelity, therefore, is a serious obligation before God.

7. Can an Unmarried Person Have Sexual Relations with a Divorced Person?

Here it is necessary to distinguish carefully between different situations.

If a divorced person was truly married and that marriage remains valid because the spouse is still alive, civil divorce does not, by itself, dissolve the marriage bond before God. Sexual relations with that person constitute an illicit union and involve adultery in relation to the existing marriage bond, in addition to constituting fornication on the part of the person who is not married to them.

Christ's teaching is precisely this:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).

However, simply being in the company of, speaking with, or SOCIALIZING with a divorced person is not a sin. Sin occurs when there is consent to or action contrary to chastity: sexual relations, deliberate sexual acts, or, depending on the circumstances, other gravely disordered acts.

8. Civil Marriage and Sacramental Marriage

In any case, Sacred Scripture establishes that the marriage union must be respected and that civil divorce cannot be used as automatic authorization to enter into a new union while a valid marriage remains in force.

Therefore, when a particular case arises, it is necessary to determine canonically whether a valid marriage bond truly exists.

9. Masturbation

Sacred Scripture does not explicitly use the modern word “masturbation,” but it condemns impurity, lust, and sexual acts contrary to the order willed by God.

Saint Paul teaches:

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5).

And:

“Flee from fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Also:

“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8).

Catholic doctrine considers masturbation a GRAVELY DISORDERED act against chastity. In determining subjective moral culpability for mortal sin (the act is objectively grave matter), one must recognize that the matter is always grave, while also considering full knowledge and deliberate consent.

10. Pornography

Pornography is radically contrary to human dignity and the virtue of chastity. Although the Bible does not use the modern term “pornography,” Our Lord condemns even a deliberately lustful gaze:

“Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Job expresses the need to guard one's eyes:

“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1).

And Saint Paul commands:

“But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among saints” (Ephesians 5:3).

Also:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor adulterers, nor the impure will inherit the Kingdom of God” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Ephesians 5:5).

Consequently, deliberately seeking pornographic images or videos, with knowledge of their nature and consent to viewing them, constitutes grave matter against chastity.

11. Impurity Excludes a Person from the Kingdom of God if There Is No Repentance

Saint Paul repeats this teaching with striking clarity:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

And he immediately adds something extremely important:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

This demonstrates that Christian doctrine does not merely condemn sin: it also offers the path of conversion, forgiveness, and sanctification.

12. The Solution: Live Chastely According to One's State in Life

The Christian response is not to seek exceptions to justify sin, but to live according to the vocation received from God.

Saint Paul says:

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

And:

“Flee from fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

He also teaches:

“The body is not meant for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Corinthians 6:13).

A married person must remain faithful to his or her spouse. An unmarried person must practice continence and chastity. A widowed person must also live chastely. A person who is separated must respect the marriage bond as long as it remains in force (the death of a spouse dissolves it). All are called to order their lives according to God.

13. The Interior Struggle Against Impure Thoughts

Chastity also requires resisting bad thoughts to which one deliberately consents.

Saint Paul teaches:

“Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).

And:

“Put to death, therefore, what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness” (Colossians 3:5).

Not every involuntary thought constitutes a sin. Temptation is not sin as long as it is not deliberately accepted. Sin arises when there is voluntary consent to a disordered thought or desire.

14. God Calls Us to Holiness of Body and Soul

The profound reason for Christian chastity is that the human body belongs to God.

Saint Paul declares:

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own? You were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20).

For this reason, Christian sexual morality is not simply a set of prohibitions. It is a call to recognize the dignity of the human body, the holiness of marriage, fidelity between spouses, and purity of heart.

15. Summary of Biblical Teaching

Adultery: Sexual relations with someone other than one's own spouse when a valid marriage exists. Scripture expressly condemns it: Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 5:27–28; Matthew 19:4–9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2–3; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Hebrews 13:4.

Fornication: Sexual relations outside marriage. Fundamental passages: Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Galatians 5:19–21; Ephesians 5:3–5; Colossians 3:5–6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8; Revelation 21:8.

Divorce and a new union: Matthew 5:31–32; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2–3; 1 Corinthians 7:10–11.

Chastity: Genesis 39:7–12; Job 31:1; Matthew 5:27–30; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8; Ephesians 5:3–5; Colossians 3:5–6; Philippians 4:8.

Masturbation and impurity: Although masturbation is not explicitly named in the Bible, its principles concerning bodily holiness, continence, purity, and mastery over the passions are found especially in Matthew 5:27–30; Romans 6:12–13; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20; Galatians 5:16–24; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8.

Pornography and lustful looking: Matthew 5:27–28; Job 31:1; Psalm 101:3; Philippians 4:8; Ephesians 5:3–5; Colossians 3:5.

Conclusion: Sacred Scripture teaches unequivocally that Christians must practice the virtue of chastity and that adultery and fornication are grave sins. Our Lord Jesus Christ confirms the holiness and permanence of marriage, and Saint Paul warns that those who deliberately persist in fornication, adultery, and impurity will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Yet the same Scripture proclaims that the sinner can be converted: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Therefore, in the face of sexual sin, the Christian path is repentance, a firm purpose of amendment, confession to a priest, conversion, struggle against temptation, and a chaste life according to one's state in life.

CONCUBINAGE

Concubinage is the state in which a man and a woman live as if married without having received the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Concubinage is a crime (OF FORNICATION) before God, an abomination before the Church, and a public scandal before society.

CIVIL MARRIAGE

Since marriage is a Sacrament, its celebration among Christians lies completely outside civil jurisdiction.

In marriage between Christians, the contract cannot be separated from the Sacrament, because marriage is the very natural contract raised by Jesus Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament.

Therefore, for a Christian there can be no true marriage that is not a Sacrament.

For Christians, only religious marriage is valid, and whoever does not marry through the Church is not married. Consequently, for a Christian, so-called civil marriage is not a valid marriage and is null even when considered as a mere contract.

If one were to enter into it because it is obligatory or civilly necessary, it would be solely in order to give effect to its civil consequences.

The Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, Pope Pius IX, stated this very clearly in an Allocution with these words:

“Every other union of man and woman, outside the Sacrament, entered into by virtue of any civil law whatsoever, is not marriage among Christians and is absolutely condemned.”

Therefore, Christians who are united ONLY civilly (in reality, in concubinage) and live as husband and wife live in a continual state of mortal sin. The same applies to those who, having contracted a religious marriage, resort to the INVALID civil divorce and supposedly “remarry” civilly. Those who live in concubinage must either marry through the Church or separate. Those who were religiously married, divorced, and then united “conjugally,” whether by “civil marriage” or otherwise, must separate from that false conjugal union. In both cases, if death overtakes them in that state, their souls will be condemned to hell for all eternity.

The children of Christians united only civilly are illegitimate before God, before the Church, and before persons of upright conscience.

Where the law so requires, the marriage must be registered in the civil registry in order to grant and secure civil effects for the married couple and their offspring.

But the Christian who is instructed in matters of religion, when registering in the civil registry, does not intend to truly contract marriage, but merely to fulfill a formality imposed by law for civil effects.

The law of civil marriage, in the form established in some nations as a substitute for true sacramental marriage, is contrary and offensive to the Catholic Religion.

It is an affront to Catholics to oblige them to perform a civil marriage as a substitute for the religious one, since they can recognize no true marriage other than the religious marriage.

Only an ignorant or impious Catholic (the impious person is no longer Catholic, but a renegade) can recognize civil marriage as a true marriage. The state could, with reason, require that once the religious marriage has been celebrated, it be immediately registered in the Civil Registry.

But the state cannot in any way, without offending the religious sentiments of conscientious Catholics, consider the act of civil registration as the celebration of marriage. Evidently, in secular—indeed atheistic—governments, civil marriage is considered true marriage even for believers.

Even in non-Catholic nations, if freedom of conscience were respected, the state should have no other requirement for Catholics than the registration of the marriage in the Civil Registry.

The art of renaming adultery

 

In today’s world, we have perfected an extraordinary skill: renaming what used to be called sin, dressing it up with softer and more acceptable words. So, when someone says they are “rebuilding their life,” what they are really doing is finding an elegant way to say they have fallen into adultery. Because, of course, who would dare call things by their proper name when we can soften them with a bit of creative language?

“Rebuilding your life” sounds almost like a noble task, as if abandoning a marriage were some kind of personal improvement project. How useful the euphemism is! We no longer talk about breaking promises or betraying a sacred sacrament; instead, adultery is presented as an opportunity for “rediscovery.” But the reality, even if we dress it up, remains the same: the act of rebuilding one’s life is, at its core, undoing the life one vowed to share in fidelity.

We find ourselves in an era where words have the power to transform the perception of things, but not their essence. “Rebuilding your life” is nothing more than a modern formula to say that the marital bond has been broken and adultery has been embraced—with a marketing twist. It’s as if, by changing the words, we also change the meaning of the act. But no matter how much we soften it, adultery remains what it is: a grave sin.

The most ironic thing about all of this is that the process of “rebuilding” is portrayed as a heroic act. The adulterer presents themselves as someone who has overcome an obstacle, when in reality they have avoided the most fundamental commitment. It doesn’t take courage to “rebuild” your life; it takes a lack of courage to stay faithful to what was promised. In the end, the phrase is an excuse dressed in self-pity.

So, let’s return to the original point: “rebuilding your life” is nothing more than a clever way of renaming adultery, a way of disguising betrayal and presenting it as a fresh start. But the truth doesn’t change, no matter how many times we try to dress it up. In the end, rebuilding one’s life after having given a word in a sacrament is nothing other than undoing what God has united, and calling it by another name does not make it virtuous.

See:

http://www.catholicityblog.com/2015/12/rebuilding-your-life.html

The Church Condemns Situational Morals (Discourse given by H.H. Pius XII)

ALSO KNOWN AS SITUATIONAL ETHICS

SOYEZ LES BIENVENUES*

DISCOURSE GIVEN BY H.H. PIUS XII ON THE ERROR OF SITUATIONAL MORALS

Friday, April 18, 1952

1. We welcome you, beloved daughters of the World Federation of Catholic Young Women. We greet you with the same pleasure, the same joy, and the same affection with which, given years ago, We received you at Castel Gandolfo, on the occasion of the great international meeting of Catholic Women.

The impetus and the wise counsels given you by this Congress, as well as the words which We addressed to you on that occasion have not remained without fruit. We know how you have worked in the meantime to realize the precise aims which were so clear to you. This is shown also by the printed memorandum which you presented to us when today’s Congress was being prepared: “The Faith of Youth—Problem of our Time.” Its thirty-two pages have all the weight of a large volume, and We have studied it with great attention, for it sums up and synthesizes the results of many different studies on the state of the Faith among the Catholic youth of Europe. Its conclusions are most instructive.

2. In Our allocution of September 11, 1947, at which you were present, as well as in many other allocutions both before and since, We Ourselves have treated of a whole series of questions which are touched upon in these pages. Today We should like to take the occasion of this meeting to tell you what we think of a certain phenomenon which is showing itself in some degree everywhere in the life of faith of Catholics, and which, in a manner, affects everyone, but especially youth and its educators, and which is referred to in several passages of your memorandum, especially when you say: “Confusing Christianity with a code of precepts and prohibitions, young people have the feeling that they are suffocating in this climate of the ‘moral imperative,’ and it is not a small minority among than who cast off this ‘cumbersome baggage.’”

A New Conception of the Moral Law

3. We could call this phenomenon a “new conception of moral life,” since there is in it a tendency which is clearly present in moral questions. Now it is on the truths of faith that the principles of morality are based, and you know how fundamentally important it is for the preservation and development of faith that the conscience of the young man and the young woman be formed at a very early age, and developed according to true and sound moral standards. Thus the “new conception of Christian morality” touches very “Problem of the Faith of Youth.”

We have already spoken of the “new morality” in our radio message of March 23rd last, to Christian Educators. What We say today is not merely a continuation of what We said then; We wish today to uncover the hidden sources of this conception. We might term it “ethical existentialism,” “ethical actualism,” “ethical individualism”—all understood in the restrictive sense that We shall later explain, and as expressed in what has otherwise been called “situationsethik,” or “morality according to situations.”

“Morality According to Situations”—Its Distinctive Sign

4. The distinctive mark of this morality is that it is not based in effect on universal moral laws, such as, for example, the Ten Commandments, but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which men must act, and according to which the conscience of the individual must judge and choose. Such a state of things is unique, and is applicable only once for every human action. That is why the decision of conscience, as the advocates of this ethic assert, cannot be commanded by ideas, principles and universal laws.

5. Christian faith bases its moral requirements on the knowledge of essential truths and their mutual relationship. This is what St. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans (1:19-21) teaches about religion as such, whether it be Christian or prior to Christianity. Through the creation of the world, says the apostle, man catches sight of, and, one may say, grasps the Creator, His everlasting power and His divinity—and this, so clearly, that he knows and feels himself obliged to recognize God and to do Him honor. Thus it is that to neglect this cult or to pervert it in idolatry is seriously sinful, for all men and at all times.

6. This is not the rule laid down by the ethic of which We speak. It does not deny outright general moral concepts and principles (although at times it comes very close to such denial). It may happen often that the decision of conscience will be in harmony with the. Yet they are not, so to speak, a body of premises, from which conscience draws logical conclusions. In a particular case, the case which “happens only once.” Not at all! At the center is found the good, which must be actuated or preserved, in its real and individual value—as, for example, in the domain of faith, the personal bond which links us with God. If a seriously trained conscience decided that abandoning the Catholic faith and joining another religion brings it closer to God, then such a step would be “justified,” even though it is generally classified as “giving up the faith.” Or again, in the domain of morality, another example is the corporal and spiritual gift of one’s, self among young people. Here, a seriously trained conscience could decide that, because of a sincere inclination, physical and sensual intimacies are in order, and these, although allowed only between married persons, would become allowable expressions of this inclination. The open conscience of today would decide in this way because from the hierarchy of values it draws the principle that personality values, being the highest, could either make use of lower bodily or sensual values, or rule them out, according to the suggestions of each individual situation. It has been insistently claimed that, precisely in virtue of this principle, in what concern, the rights of married person, it would be necessary, in case of conflict, to leave to the serious and upright conscience of the parties, according to the demands of concrete situations, the power to frustrate directly the realization of biological values, for the benefit of personality values.

Such judgments of conscience, howsoever contrary they may seem at first sight to divine precepts, would be valid before God, because, they say, in the eyes of God a seriously formed conscience takes precedence over “precept” and “law.”

Hence such a decision is “active” and “productive.” It is not “passive” and merely “receptive” of the decision of the law which God has written in the heart of each one, and still less of the decision of the Decalogue, which the finger of God wrote on tables of stone, making it a duty of human authority to promulgate and preserve it.

The “New Morals” Eminently “Individual”

7. The new ethic (adapted to circumstances), say its authors, is eminently “individual.” In this determination of conscience, each individual finds himself in direct relationship with God and decides before Him, without the slightest trace of intervention by any law, any authority, any community, any cult or religion. Here there is simply the “I” of man and the “I” of the personal God, not the God of the law, but of God the Father, with whom man must unite himself in filial love. Viewed thus, the decision of conscience is a personal “risk,” according to one’s own knowledge and evaluation, in all sincerity before God. These two things, right intention and sincere response, are what God considers! He is not concerned with the action. Hence the answer may be to exchange that Catholic faith for other principles, to seek divorce, to interrupt gestation, to refuse obedience to competent authority in the family, the Church, the State, and so forth.

All this would be perfectly fitting for man’s status as one who has come “of age” and, in the Christian order, it would be in harmony with the relation of sonship which, according to the teaching of Christ, makes us pray to God as “Our Father.”

This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the “new morality.”

It is Alien to the Faith and Catholic Principles

8. Stated thus expressly, the new ethic is so foreign to the faith and to Catholic principles that even a child, if he knows his catechism, will be aware of it and will feel it. It is not difficult to recognize how this new moral system derives from existentialism which either prescinds from God or simply denies Him, and, in any case, leaves man to himself. It is possible that present-day conditions may have led men to attempt to transplant this “new morality” into Catholic soil, in order to make the hardships of Christian life more bearable for the faithful. In fact, millions of them are being called upon today, and in an extraordinary degree, to practice firmness, patience, constancy, and the spirit of sacrifice, if they wish to preserve their faith intact. For they suffer the blows of fate, or are placed in surroundings which put within their reach everything which their passionate heart yearns for or desires. Such an attempt can never succeed.

The Fundamental Obligations of the Moral Law

9. It will be asked, how the moral law, which is universal, can be sufficient, and even have binding force, in an individual case, which, in the concrete, is always unique and “happens only once.” It can be sufficient and binding, and it actually is because precisely by reason of its universality, the moral law includes necessarily and “intentionally” all particular cases in which its meaning is verified. In very many cases it does so with such convincing logic that even the conscience of the simple faithful sees immediately, and with full certitude, the decision to be taken.

10. This is especially true of the negative obligations of the moral law, namely those which oblige us not to do something, or to set something else aside. Yet it is not true only of these obligations. The fundamental obligations of the moral law are based on the essence and the nature of man, and on his essential relationships, and thus they have force wherever we find man. The fundamental obligations of the Christian law, in the degree in which they are superior to those of the natural law, are based on the essence of the supernatural order established by the Divine Redeemer. From the essential relationships between man and God, between man and man, between husband and wide, between parents and children; from the essential community relationships found in the family, in the Church, and in the State, it follows, among other things, that hatred of God, blasphemy, idolatry, abandoning the true faith, denial of the faith, perjury, murder, bearing false witness, calumny, adultery and fornication, the abuse of marriage, the solitary sin, stealing and robbery, taking away the necessities of life, depriving workers of their just wage (James 5:4), monopolizing vital foodstuffs and unjustifiably increasing princes, fraudulent bankruptcy, unjust maneuvering in speculation—all this is gravely forbidden by the divine Lawmaker. No examination is necessary. No matter what the situation of the individual may be, there is no other course open to him but to obey.

11. For the rest, against the “ethics of situations,” We set up three considerations, or maxims. The first: We grant that God wants, first and always, a right intention. But this is not enough. He also wants the good work. A second principle is that it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may result (Rom. 3:8). Now this new ethic, perhaps without being aware of it, acts according to the principle that the end justifies the means. A Christian cannot be unaware of the fact that he must sacrifice everything, even his life, in order to save his soul. Of this we are reminded by all the martyrs. Martyrs are very numerous, even in our time. The mother of the Maccabees, along with her sons; Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, notwithstanding their new-born children; Maria Goretti, and thousands of others, men and women, whom the Church venerates—did they, in the face of the “situation” in which they found themselves, uselessly or even mistakenly incur a bloody death? No, certainly not, and in their blood they are the most explicit witnesses to the truth against the “new morality.”

The Problem of the Formation of Conscience

12. Where there are no absolutely binding standards, independent of all circumstances or eventualities, the situation which “happens only once” demands, it is true, in its uniqueness, an attentive exanimation, in order to decide which rules are to be applied, and how. Catholic morality has always, and extensively, treated this problem of the formation of one’s conscience with a preliminary exanimation of the circumstances of the case to be decided. The whole of its teaching offers a precious aid to the definite guidance of conscience, whether theoretical or practical. Let it suffice to mention to explanations of St. Thomas, still of value, on the cardinal virtue of prudence and the virtues connected with it (S. The. 2a, 2ae, q. 47-57). His treatise shows his understanding of a sense of personal activity and of actuality, which contains whatever true and positive elements there may be in “ethics according to the situation,” while avoiding its confusion and wanderings from the truth. Hence, it will be enough for the modern moralist to follow the same line, if he wishes to make a thorough study of the new problem.

The Christian education of conscience is far from neglecting personality, even that of the young girl and the child, or from strangling initiative. All sound education aims at rendering the teacher unnecessary, little by little, and making the one educated independent, within proper limits. This is also true of the education of the conscience by God and the Church. Its aim is, as the Apostles says (Eph, 4:13; cf. 4:14) “The perfect man, according to the measure of the fullness of the age of Christ,” that is to say, a man who is of age, and who also has the courage which goes hand in hand with responsibility.

It is necessary, however, that this maturity finds its place in the right plan! By means of His Church through which He continues to act, Jesus Christ remains the Lord, the head, and the master of every individual man, whatever may be his age and state. The Christian, for his part, must take up the serious and sublime task of putting into practice, in his personal life, his professional life, and social and public life, in so far as it may depend on him, the truth, the spirit, and the law of Christ. This is what we call Catholic morality, and it leaves a vast field of action for personal enterprise and the personal responsibility of the Christian.

Dangers to the Faith of Youth

13. We are anxious to say this to you. The dangers besetting the faith of our young people are today extraordinarily numerous. Everyone knew this and knows it, but your memorandum is particularly instructive on this subject. Nevertheless, We feel that few of these dangers are as great or so heavy in foreboding as those which the “new morality” creates for faith. The errors arising from such distortions, from such softening of the moral duties, which flow quite naturally from faith, would in time lead to the poisoning of its very well-spring. This would be the death of faith.

Two Conclusions

From all that We have said about faith, We shall draw two conclusions, two directives, which We should leave with you, in order that they may give direction and life to the whole of your conduct as valiant Christians.

The first: The faith of your people must be a faith that prays. Youth must learn how to pray. Let this prayer always be in the measure and in the form suitable to one’s years, but always with the realization that without prayer it is impossible to remain true to the faith.

The second: Youth must be proud of its faith, and acknowledge that it costs something. From earliest childhood, young people must accustom themselves to sacrifices for their faith, to walk before God with an upright conscience, and to reverence whatever He orders. Then youth will grow, quite readily, in the love of God.

*Discourse given to the World Federation of Catholic Young Women: AAS 44 (1952) 413ss.

Source: Vatican.va
RELATED TOPICS (CLICK HERE): http://www.catholicityblog.com/2016/04/amoris-laetitia.html

Pharisaism

Filial Promise We Will Make to Our Lord Jesus Christ… in Case We Have the Misfortune of Being in Mortal Sin

IRREFORMABLE TEACHINGS OF THE DOGMATIC COUNCIL OF TRENT

CANON XI on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

CAN XI. lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

On Contrition and Purpose of Amendment as Conditions to Receive Sacramental Absolution

Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. Wherefore the holy Synod declares, that this contrition contains not only a cessation from sin, and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old, agreeably to that saying; Cast away from you all your iniquities, wherein you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

On the indissolubility of marriage

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

SITUATIONAL ETHICS IS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH

“Situational ethics (or morals)” is an error that was condemned by the Pope Pius XII* and by the Holy Office in 1956. In this error SUBJECTIVISM is proposed as a moral norm, because it claims that the conscience cannot be ruled by universal laws or principles (such as the Ten Commandments and the Revelation), and therefore every situation must be dealt with according to the specific circumstances that surround it, and based on this the individual conscience can judge and choose. Thus, according to the Modernists, the subjective conscience (even if it is poorly formed by the individual’s own fault) prevails over the objective morals. This fatal error is present in Amoris laetitia, for without denying the principles, it violates and contradicts them in the pastoral practice, invoking – although without calling it by its name – “situational ethics”, because instead of helping and correcting the distorted consciences, it supports them in their errors and pushes them into the abyss.

Saint Thomas Aquinas describes conscience as the practical judgment by which we apply universal principles to particular actions (S. Th., I, q. 79, a. 13). Therefore, according to upright morals, the conscience applies the objective moral norm to each specific situation; it does not create the norm depending on the subjective situation in which each person may be.

 “Situational ethics” nullifies the objectiveness of morals, making it subjective, individual and personal, thus each individual feels authorized to judge that an objective commandment or virtue cannot be practiced by him due to the situation he is in, and therefore, according to him, they do not oblige him.  

*Note: Neo-morals was condemned by the Church through three solemn pontifical declarations made by Pius XII: the radio message to Christian educators of March 23, 1952; The Discourse to the delegates of the World Federation of the Feminine Catholic Youth, and the Discourse made on the occasion of the fifth World Congress of Clinical Psychology, of April 13, 1953. Also, the Holy Office issued a decree on neo-morals on February 2, 1956.  

See also (click here): http://www.catholicityblog.com/2016/04/amoris-laetitia.html

http://www.catholicityblog.com/2015/12/five-steps-necessary-for-making-good.html

http://www.catholicityblog.com/2016/02/receiving-communion-without-going-to.html

You can reproduce this post provided you quote this site.

Source of information: Blog CATOLICIDAD, http://www.catolicidad.com/2016/04/filial-promesa-que-por-amor-haremos.html