Is premarital sex rarer among trads?

[james03]

I'm not sure how common Ms. Joy-Egly's story is, but I have noticed a certain prudishness in trad circles, where the sexes are too separated during youth, which leads to excesses when they become young adults (similar thing happens in Islam culture).

From the youth/swing dancing group I was involved with back in the day all except one late joiner are now married, and that person is dating seriously.  ALL are still Trad.  And despite this success, I am probably considered as the worst sort of reprobate by some Trads.

Virtue is in the mean.

Yep.  Before your kids are adult, you have complete control.  Why not utilize that time to provide chaperoned experiences so kids can learn to interact in a healthy way?  And as an added benefit, kids are having fun, and they look at the alternative secular world of miserable wrecks and say, "Why would I want to join THAT?".

[KreKre]

But Tiffany was possessed of a skeptical mind. "I would question in religion class," she told me at a Starbucks in Topeka, where she works as an emergency-room nurse and lives with her husband and two daughters. "If God gave us a brain, how come we can't use birth control? Because that makes more sense than having 12 kids that you can't afford to feed." This attitude was not welcome at the academy. "I was in detention a lot," she said.

It's a valid question to ask. Asking it shouldn't be a reason for detention, unless she was intentionally disruptive to the class. The Church has the correct answer to that question, why artificial birth control is contrary to God's natural law, and why every marriage act should welcome the possibility of children, which are God's gift. Teenage girls should be taught that, they should be given clear answers that satisfy all the questions regarding morality of sexuality that their inquisitive minds come up with. Of course, the answers have to be correct, and presented in a way that does not create an occasion for sin. Only with a clear knowledge and certainty that faith in God provides can they resist the temptations of this wicked world.

Reading old Catechisms and Catholic brochures, it is astonishing how the teaching of the Catholic Church used to be clear. All the answers to difficult questions were easy, they were unambiguous, simple to understand, and the demands they placed on the faithful were not unreasonable. The fact this teaching is not clear today and causes much confusion is almost certainly intentional.

[Geremia]

Before your kids are adult, you have complete control.

And before they hit puberty, they should have learned self-control.

[Michael Wilson]

Geremia is right on two counts:
There is no corresponding Canon in the 1917 Code for the #1098 of the new code. Secondly, the error of quality mentioned by James, i.e. Virginity, does not invalidate the marriage, even if this was the reason why the man married her:

Canon 1083 (1917) (1983 CIC 1097)
§ 1. Error concerning the person renders marriage invalid.
§ 2. Error about a quality of the person, even if it gave rise to the contract, renders marriage
invalid only:
1.° If the error about quality amounts to an error of the person;
2.° If a free person contracts marriage with a person thought to be free, but he was
really a slave in servitude strictly speaking.

Commentary by Buscaren & Ellis
Pg. 557

Error regarding a quality of a person. The qualities of the person with whom once contracts marriage are not of their nature substantial elements. This is true even though the error is the cause of the contract, that is, even though, but for the error, the contract would not have been made. For example, a man wishes to marry a wealthy girl; he would knowingly marry none other; he thinks that Jane is wealthy and marries her for that reason. Jane turn out to be penniless. The marriage is not for that reason invalid.

[Michael Wilson]

Lying about fornication is specifically called out by our Lord as an example of grounds for annulment.

Fornication does not invalidate marriage. Where are you getting that from? Matthew 5:32 or 19:9? Those verses actually prove that fornication doesn't invalidate marriage; "whosoever shall put away his wife (γυναίκα = woman), except it be for fornication (πορνεία, porneia = any sexual sin), ..." means: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except she really be not his wife (but his concubine), ..."

The above is not the traditional Catholic interpretation of the above verse; here is the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

[Geremia]

The above is not the traditional Catholic interpretation of the above verse

Why not?
See ch. 2, §7 "The Diriment Exceptives: Matthew 5:32; 19:9" of Remaining in the Truth of Christ.

[Greg]

I've never found concupiscence to be diminished by attending a TLM.   

You're right, but there's another factor at play, I think, that is much different to when we old dogs were young pups back in the 1980s.

Many young women now are absolute skanks.  I am looking for a lower word but don't know one.

A 19 year old boy who my son converted to Tradism and who I am getting a job in the City, was telling me what happens on his social media account.  Women approach him and offer him no strings, no holds barred,  sex and say things like we can go to confession afterward or I won't tell if you dont.  These aren't trad women, but they are obviously Catholic women because it's clear in his sober profile what he is about. He is clean cut.  I would add this is not a dating site, it is a social media site.

I think Gen Z females have been made into skanky, no-money-down, megasluts, by porn, rap videos and the degenerate culture, in ways that Gen X were not.

That behaviour was extremely rare in the late 1980s when I was first year Uni.  Even the skanks were not THAT skanky.  Rarer than rocking-horse poop.

It is just like men who go to war, if it is little bit exciting and dangerous it is thrilling.  Kill a couple of ugly commie gooks and it is sort of fun, an adrenalin rush.  Go through the Battle of the Somme and see the real death and destruction of war and you're changed.  You never want to see it again.

[Bonaventure]

I've never found concupiscence to be diminished by attending a TLM.   

You're right, but there's another factor at play, I think, that is much different to when we old dogs were young pups but in the 1980s.

Many young women now are absolute skanks.  I am looking for a lower word but dont know one.

A 19 year old boy who my son converted to Tradism and who I am getting a job in the City, was telling me what happens on his social media account.  Women approach him and offer him no strings, no holds barred sex and say things like we can go to confession afterward or I won't tell if you dont.  These aren't trad women, but they are obviously Catholic women because it's clear in his profile what he is after.

I think Gen Z females have been made into skanky, no-money-down, whores by porn, rap videos and the degenerate culture in ways that Gen X were not.

That behaviour was extremely rare in the late 1980s when I was first year Uni.  Even the skanks were not that skanky.  That never happened in my day.  Rarer than rocking-horse poop.

It is just like men who go to war, if it is little bit exciting and dangerous it is thrilling.  Kill a couple of ugly commie gooks and it is sort of fun, an adrenalin rush.  Go through the Battle of the Somme and see the real death and destruction of war and you're changed.  You never want to see it again.

I don't know even Gen Z or Zoomers, but it wasn't this bad for us millennials. Not as prudish for you Gen Xers, but from the many, many trads and neo con Catholics I know:

The women still would control how far things got.

The women would never offer no strings attached sex, and tell the man let's just go to confession.

Most often it would be a boyfriend and girlfriend or engaged coupled. They'd slip up and do everything but, or would actually go all the way. A lot of guilt, confession, probably not that strong on the firm resolution. It gets especially tempting and difficult for an engaged couple as they approach the date.

The only times I've heard of women giving it up immediately was when they'd find themselves alone with the men, and kissing and petting led to their logical end.

Extremely rare, less than 1%.

A trad man hitting bars or dating apps to find loose women sure. But less than 1% amongst the trad girls.

[Greg]

I am not suggesting that Trad girls are hitting up on men like that.  I am stating for a fact that the culture ALL women are subjected too is FAR worse that in the 1980s.

Back in 2019 I was on a plane and through the gap in the seat I saw a woman flicking through dick pics a man had sent her and not her boyfriend, as she had the dickpics of several men on her phone.  I cannot imagine any woman brazen enough to read Playgirl on an airplane in the 1980s or 1990s.  Just did not happen in normal everyday life,

[james03]

Michael,
Thanks for finding some substantive commentary based on Traditional Catholic teaching.  This is good stuff.

I have a problem with the cite, as I'll discuss:

Error regarding a quality of a person. The qualities of the person with whom once (ONE?) contracts marriage are not of their nature substantial elements. This is true even though the error is the cause of the contract, that is, even though, but for the error, the contract would not have been made. For example, a man wishes to marry a wealthy girl; he would knowingly marry none other; he thinks that Jane is wealthy and marries her for that reason. Jane turn out to be penniless. The marriage is not for that reason invalid.

1.  What is the teaching on errors regarding "substantial elements" of a person?  I would view virginity to be a substantial element, but maybe I'm wrong.  The example is with regards to a woman's wealth, which obviously is accidental.

2.  The example deals where a man "thinks" a woman is wealthy.  It doesn't address the case of fraud.

I don't know either way, but I don't consider this question answered.

[Michael Wilson]

The above is not the traditional Catholic interpretation of the above verse

Why not?
See ch. 2, §7 "The Diriment Exceptives: Matthew 5:32; 19:9" of Remaining in the Truth of Christ.

A wonderful collection of "Conservative" Catholics vs the traditional interpretation? Is your "proof"?
The same people that think that the above Canon 1098 and the annulments given out by the Conciliar Church are "A=OK"?
Here is another excerpt, this time from the "Great Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide:

Ver. 32.—But I say unto you, &c. Christ here corrects and settles the law of divorce. 1. Because the law easily conceded divorce for various causes. But Christ permits it only on account of fornication, if a wife be an adulteress; and from an adulterer the innocent wife is at liberty to depart, according to that maxim, "If a man break his marriage vow that may be broken with him." 2. The Law conceded both to the woman who was put away, and to the husband who repudiated her, the liberty of contracting a second marriage. But Christ denies it to both. 3. The Law conceded to the husband alone the power of giving a writing of divorcement. But Christ, with respect to this matrimonial right places the man and the woman upon a perfect equality, as S. Paul teaches, 1 Cor. 7:4.

Except for the cause of fornication. By fornication here some understand any sin whatever, that is, in the form of a sort of spiritual fornication with any creature, leaving God, the Creator and Husband of the Soul. Thus S. Augustine, Origen, in loc. But this is taking it in too loose a sense.

By fornication others understand infidelity. For this is constantly called fornication by the prophets, that is to say, spiritual and mystical fornication.

But expositors, ancient and modern, passim, understand fornication here in its strict, literal sense, as denoting all illicit sexual intercourse.
You will say it is lawful to put away a wife if she endeavour to draw her husband into any sin, as is laid down in the chapter, Quœsivi de divortiis, and as Christ Himself sufficiently indicates, ver. 29. Also if the wife practise sorcery, or compass her husband's death; so that it is lawful to put a wife away for other causes besides fornication.

I answer, what you say is true, but Christ here assigns fornication as the only cause of divorce, both because it is the only proper cause of divorce, speaking in a strict sense, from marriage, as being immediately destructive of it, whilst the others are general causes, and would absolve a Christian from any union whatever; also because the divorce of even a repentant adulteress is conceded in perpetuity, so that although the wife repent of her adultery the husband is not bound to receive her again to his house, whereas in the other cases he is bound to receive her back again to favour; lastly, because Christ here wishes entirely to exclude all such causes of divorce as the wife's deformity, poverty, disagreeableness, &c., which were common among the Jews. And to them He is here addressing Himself.

And whoso shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. Cajetan and others here repeat the words, excepting for the cause of fornication, as though it were lawful for the man putting away the adulterous wife, and for the adulteress herself, to enter again into matrimony. But what S. Paul says (1 Cor. 7:11), is plainly repugnant to this idea. For he there bids the innocent wife remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her adulterous husband. See what I have there said; and this is the constant usage and interpretation of the Church, of which more on chap. 19:9.

[Michael Wilson]

Michael,
Thanks for finding some substantive commentary based on Traditional Catholic teaching.  This is good stuff.

I have a problem with the cite, as I'll discuss:

Error regarding a quality of a person. The qualities of the person with whom once (ONE?) contracts marriage are not of their nature substantial elements. This is true even though the error is the cause of the contract, that is, even though, but for the error, the contract would not have been made. For example, a man wishes to marry a wealthy girl; he would knowingly marry none other; he thinks that Jane is wealthy and marries her for that reason. Jane turn out to be penniless. The marriage is not for that reason invalid.

1.  What is the teaching on errors regarding "substantial elements" of a person?  I would view virginity to be a substantial element, but maybe I'm wrong.  The example is with regards to a woman's wealth, which obviously is accidental.

2.  The example deals where a man "thinks" a woman is wealthy.  It doesn't address the case of fraud.

I don't know either way, but I don't consider this question answered.

James,
1.An error regarding a "person" would be if a man were dating an identical twin and one woman was swapped for the other.
2."Fraud": even if the woman represented herself falsely as being wealthy, it would not invalidate the marriage. The same for the virginity issue. A person being or not being a virgin does not change the identity of the person.

[Geremia]

A wonderful collection of "Conservative" Catholics vs the traditional interpretation? Is your "proof"?

I don't disagree with the interpretation you cite, but what is wrong the one I mentioned?
Why do you insist there is only one interpretation?

[james03]

1.An error regarding a "person" would be if a man were dating an identical twin and one woman was swapped for the other.

Accepted.  However this makes 2.1 a tautology.

1.° If the error about quality amounts to an error of the person;

So what errors of quality amounts to an error of the person?  I'd like to see an example.

Unfortunately your cite only gives a case where the marriage is still valid, i.e. he THINKS she's wealthy.  I'd like to see an example where an error about the quality invalidates the marriage.

The same for the virginity issue.

For me, there's no "virginity issue".  I'm only concerned about fraud.

[Michael Wilson]

Geremia:

I don't disagree with the interpretation you cite, but what is wrong the one I mentioned?
Why do you insist there is only one interpretation?

Because both cannot be true; i.e. Either Our Lord is referring to adultery committed by a married woman or He is referring to fornication committed by a non-Married woman (as you would have it).

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except she really be not his wife (but his concubine), ..."