Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Fornication --which form of it is the worst?

Adelphoi,

For your perusal and consideration...

Which form of fornication is the worst sexual sin?

I raise this question because it has been put to me (in various ways and by various persons) that the offence to God of two men (or two women) living together in a sexually faithful partnership is the greater (and thus a worse sin) than two persons, a male and female, also living together (co-habiting) in a sexually faithful partnership.

The basis of the differentiation into bad and worse or lesser and great offence seems to be that while the uniting of two men in sexual activity is abnormal (thus "an abomination") the uniting of a male and female in sexual activity is normal in terms of natural law, even if contrary to specific divine law of chastity before marriage.

It is clear from empirical observation that (a) that two persons of the same sex may live together, co-habit, and be a great help to each other in all kinds of ways - true companions & friends; and (b) that sexual activity between these two consenting persons of the same sex can bring them a sense of physical satisfaction and delight. What is also clear is that their sexual union cannot be on any occasion and in any circumstance a means of procreation.

It is also clear that (a) a male and female may live together, co-habit, and be a great help to each other in all kinds of ways - true companions and friends; and (b) that sexual activity between two such persons can bring them a sense of physical satisfaction and delight. What is also clear is that their sexual union can be under normal circumstances a possible means of procreation.

HOWEVER, if the male/female couple have decided and taken action to make sure that their sexual intercourse is never directed towards procreation, but is simply and only as a means of sensual delight and satisfaction, then they cannot be said to be obeying natural law. Sexual intercourse surely exists primarily (but not only in human beings) as the means for the continuation of the race (see the Preface to the BCP of 1662).

Thus it would seem that morally there is little or no distinction between the two couples since both are using their sexual drives merely and only for personal pleasure and not within the purpose of the Creator to join him as a co-creator of a new person.

Thus it would seem that modern forms of both fornication (co-habiting where it is not intended as a common law marriage with children as a possibility) and sodomy (co-habiting with one partner) are both offences to the Almighty Lord, who is our Judge.

We do not serve any good end by claiming that the latter is more serious an offence to heaven that is the former. Both activities are sins to be repented of, penance done and forgiveness received.

For those who want to know how seriously fornication and adultery was viewed by the English reformers, I commend the reading of the powerful Homily, "Against Whoredom and Adultery," in the Book of Homilies of the C of E from the 16th century [this Book is referred to in the Articles of Religion, a formulary of the Anglican Way).

There is no doubt that the Christian Way is abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage, with chastity before and during marriage, which is open to the possibility of the procreation of children. It is becoming increasingly difficult to teach this and expect this state of affairs in the modern Church of the West, where co-habitation of same-sex and heterosexual couples is accepted in most parishes as normal, or at least their right.


[P.S. In the now common case of the over 60s, usually over 70s, where a widow and widower live together for companionship and do not marry because they are told by their accountants that they are much better off as not married, I think that the situation is not the same as with young people! Different considerations may apply.]




The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon

No comments: