Bishops Blast Creighton Proposal To Allow Sex Before Marriage

[Regi]

ketv.com/news/13587504/detail.html

Here is the article from U. S. Catholic:

uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_

Just kidding…
Thoughts?

 

[manualman]

What a pathetic attempt at rationalization!! Now I remember why I detest USHeretic magazine.

They attempt to demonstrate legitimacy via pre-Trent Tradition, but instead seem to me to demonstrate a lack of belief in the sacramentality of marriage!

From their description, it sounds to me like the sacrament was bestowed in those ancient times at betrothal and consummation. So what’s the point? Once you have consummated a sacramental marriage, it is for life. No backing out, no divorce, no nonsense.

This has got to be the same crowd who keeps dredging up new attempts to rationalize away the sinfulness of contraception. Now that the masses have bought THAT one, we move on to the NEXT big lie. Typical.

 

[JimG]

The researchers propose that committed couples should be able to live together and have sex – even have children – by taking a formal, public oath to get married later.

How many girls has that line worked with?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Is this the same as what some Muslims are now calling temporary wives and husbands so as not to commit sexual sins?

If and when these betrothal situations end do they still have to go through the annulment process or are they free to try out another spouse?:banghead:

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I am not sure how viable this would work today, they would need a statically significant number of case studies to make the case more. It seems to be too much of a radical step at this point.

I did enjoy the section on the history of marriage. It was very interesting to read how things were prior to Trent. It does continue to show that the Church traditions have been variable over time and change is possible.

I do give the researchers credit to at least bring up the issue for a debate.

 

[buffalo]

A betrothal proposal

Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.

[more…](A betrothal proposal - National Shrine of St. Jude)

and

Archbishop calls CU professors’ essay contrary to Catholic doctrine

After spending years together preparing Roman Catholic couples for marriage, the Omaha Archdiocese and Creighton University’s family ministry center are getting divorced.

The grounds: A dispute over premarital sex.

more…

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

The first two links are from U.S. Catholic. That tells me a lot right there. I started reading the first one but will have to read it later. So far, I’m unimpressed.

 

[JimG]

“It’s OK, honey. We can have sex now, and get married later. And here’s an article to show that the Church is OK with it.” Wow, what more could a guy ask for?

 

[frommi]

I guess I’m a little confused…two people do some research and suggest something that is outside our current norms…near as I can tell it’s a scholarly essay constructed in a thoughtful way with some church history as its guide.

Now…whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it…(and most would disagree)…why not keep the conversation about it on a high level…make it clear why there are issues with what these folks wrote…when we just start ‘blasting’ things we look like we’re scared they might be right.

 

[JimG]

The article in U.S. Catholic didn’t seem all that scholarly. The authors assert that the idea of betrothal follwed by marriage has been accepted by the Church in the past. Well, of course.
It still is.

They also state that sex following betrothal was considered “marital” sex, but they didn’t provide any historical evidence to back up that assertion.

If in fact, sexual intercourse following betrothal is marital sex, then the parties are really married at betrothal, and the ultimate wedding is just a nice ceremony to top it off and get gifts.

It also follows that breaking a betrothal would be the equivalent of breaking a marriage–i.e. not allowed.

If sexual intercourse following betrothal is not marital sex, then it is fornication. And the Church has always condemned fornication.

 

[frommi]

The article in U.S. Catholic didn’t seem all that scholarly. The authors assert that the idea of betrothal follwed by marriage has been accepted by the Church in the past. Well, of course.
It still is.

They also state that sex following betrothal was considered “marital” sex, but they didn’t provide any historical evidence to back up that assertion.

If in fact, sexual intercourse following betrothal is marital sex, then the parties are really married at betrothal, and the ultimate wedding is just a nice ceremony to top it off and get gifts.

It also follows that breaking a betrothal would be the equivalent of breaking a marriage–i.e. not allowed.

If sexual intercourse following betrothal is not marital sex, then it is fornication. And the Church has always condemned fornication.

That’s a very good analysis of the article…and a fair one (I think).

I also think it’s more productive than some of the other potential responses.

 

[mommyof4]

I’m in Omaha right now (home of Creighton University), and boy, has the you know what hit the fan around here. Most Catholics I’ve talked to today are outraged at Creighton University. I think that the alumni need to start pulling funds, and that will speak louder than the Bishop, in my opinion.

 

[frommi]

I’m in Omaha right now (home of Creighton University), and boy, has the you know what hit the fan around here. Most Catholics I’ve talked to today are outraged at Creighton University. I think that the alumni need to start pulling funds, and that will speak louder than the Bishop, in my opinion.

Alumni should start pulling funds because two theologians exercised academic freedom and published a controversial article?

You do realize that will do little more than punish the students who are at the school right? Most of whom don’t read US Catholic and have no idea who these people are.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“It’s OK, honey. We can have sex now, and get married later. And here’s an article to show that the Church is OK with it.” Wow, what more could a guy ask for?

“Lie down. I think I love you.”

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Alumni should start pulling funds because two theologians exercised academic freedom and published a controversial article?

You do realize that will do little more than punish the students who are at the school right? Most of whom don’t read US Catholic and have no idea who these people are.

Yep, this is a over-the-top response. I realize Nebraska is more conservative than other parts of the country (see Lincoln Bishop), but this article was one of those shocking in-your-face ones that almost wanted to test boundaries. Even most Catholics (and non-Catholics) would see it as over the top in many ways. It seemed to be based on more of a local 12th century tradition in Spain (which may still happen).

In a few weeks everything should settle down over this after a few interesting discussions. I don’t see any harm or foul committed here.

 

[Genesis315]

Alumni should start pulling funds because two theologians exercised academic freedom and published a controversial article?

Catholic theologians have no such freedom to contradict Church teaching–such “academic freedom” is Liberal bunk:

Lateran V:

And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the catholic faith.

Vatican I:

1. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesia:

§ 3. In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfil a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition(50).​

At the same time, since theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the Bishops of the Church(29), it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic discipline that theologians respect the authority of the Bishops, and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught(30). Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between Bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media(31).​

If need be, a Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society.

1. A specific priority is the need to examine and evaluate the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture in a Christian perspective, and the responsibility to try to communicate to society those *ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life. *In this way a University can contribute further to the development of a true Christian anthropology, founded on the person of Christ, which will bring the dynamism of the creation and redemption to bear on reality and on the correct solution to the problems of life.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Catholic theologians have no such freedom to contradict Church teaching–such “academic freedom” is Liberal bunk:

Actually it did not do that in the first place. It referred back to a time in church history when this was acceptable (12th Century). It was a church teaching at one point, and while things are different now does not mean that it can not be discussed or brought up in the present as it relates to the past in a historical context.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Alumni should start pulling funds because two theologians exercised academic freedom and published a controversial article?

Where does the Catechism say alumni are obliged to support this kind of stuff?

You do realize that will do little more than punish the students who are at the school right? Most of whom don’t read US Catholic and have no idea who these people are.

So the students are being held hostage to force alumni to support this sort of stuff?

 

[Genesis315]

Actually it did not do that in the first place. It referred back to a time in church history when this was acceptable (12th Century). It was a church teaching at one point, and while things are different now does not mean that it can not be discussed or brought up in the present as it relates to the past in a historical context.

Read what John Paul II said above–the fact that these guys are being “blasted” by the Bishop, shows they did not submit their teaching to him for approval. Likewise, as the First Vatican Council taught, if you deny the right of the Church to ban such teaching, you separate yourself from the society of the faithful.

 

[JimO]

Call me thick-skulled, but why would the following arrangement:

In the canonical words of the received tradition, their engagement or betrothal initiates their marriage; their subsequent ritual wedding, before or after the birth of a child, consummates their marriage and makes it indissoluble. Since their betrothal—however expressed, preferably in a public ritual—initiates their marriage, their cohabitation is not premarital. It is certainly pre-ceremonial, though that could be remedied by the introduction of a church betrothal ceremony.

…be any different from actual marriage and not subject to the relationship to the

restrictions—social, economic, educational, and professional—that contemporary society imposes on them are removed

It sounds like a lame excuse to have a sexual relationship that is dissoluble. Hey, that sounds an aweful like modern marriage in a secular society - imagine that? The similarities much be purely coincidental.