T
TeachCatechism
Guest
I haven’t said anything against any rules there might be, but nice try. I am stating what are Catholic views, and premarital sex is against the church’s teachings.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Some people have given some good replies to the OP’s question, although it did seem a little confusing. The Church’s basic teachings regarding marriage are pretty simple.
–Sex is to be reserved for marriage.
–Marriage is for life.
These aren’t things that the Church came up with. These are the teachings of Christ handed down to us. At one time, not so long ago, every Christian denomination took them with absolute seriousness.
Since marriage is for life, there is no way that a valid, consummated marriage can be terminated except by death. The Church has no authority to nullify a marriage.
So an “annulment” is not something the Church can do. Rather it is a decision the Church can make, after an investigation, as to whether the marriage in question was validly made at its outset. Was there consent, freely given? Did the parties intend permanence, fidelity, openness to life? Was there some unknown impediment? If the marriage is found to be null from the beginning, the Church can declare that fact; but it can’t make the marriage null.
The teachings on fornication and adultery are also Christ’s teachings. Nothing the Church can do to change that.
Things just get complicated when sin enters in and human beings are involved. But that’s what reconciliation is for.
–Sex is to be reserved for marriage.
–Marriage is for life.
These aren’t things that the Church came up with. These are the teachings of Christ handed down to us. At one time, not so long ago, every Christian denomination took them with absolute seriousness.
Since marriage is for life, there is no way that a valid, consummated marriage can be terminated except by death. The Church has no authority to nullify a marriage.
So an “annulment” is not something the Church can do. Rather it is a decision the Church can make, after an investigation, as to whether the marriage in question was validly made at its outset. Was there consent, freely given? Did the parties intend permanence, fidelity, openness to life? Was there some unknown impediment? If the marriage is found to be null from the beginning, the Church can declare that fact; but it can’t make the marriage null.
The teachings on fornication and adultery are also Christ’s teachings. Nothing the Church can do to change that.
Things just get complicated when sin enters in and human beings are involved. But that’s what reconciliation is for.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Heck, no non Catholic has said it is not. All anyone here has done is question the attitude that you hold towards those you deem to be worse sinners than you. (Not the person I quoted, this is directed to teachcatachism)
G
Gullveig
Guest
On reflection, I am now certain that this person has to be a troll. I’ve met some pretty awful Christians, but I’ve never met one who laid on the sanctimony this thick. 10/10, would feel bad for the Christian who have to put up with her again.
T
TeachCatechism
Guest
I’m a troll because I believe in CATHOLIC teachings on a CATHOLIC site? that’s a new one.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
For a religious ed instructor you don’t seem to know much about catholic teaching.
T
TeachCatechism
Guest
Here we go again where an ATHEIST attacks me because I KNOW the teachings. The teachings clearly state that premarital sex is against church teachings. My priest knows more about this than you.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I would like to point out that premarital sex is the sin, not the having a child out of wedlock. Someone who has premarital sex and gets pregnant is no more guilty than someone who has premarital sex and doesn’t.
K
kozlosap
Guest
I seriously doubt that the potential trolls on this thread will ever understand what Papa Francis was getting at when he repeated the lines about the Church being a hospital for sinners. It’s much easier to spout rules and dogma than to live by the gospels and Corporal Works of Mercy! 
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Actually, the person without a child may be “more” of a sinner, as they may have had premarital sex and used birth control or had an abortion.
R
relstudent
Guest
I have not read all of the posts so I may be covering old material, but I have several thoughts on this.
This issue is a complex one. There are several situations that must be taken into account. The first is of a truely single mother who made a mistake and wants her baby to be baptized into the Church. The second is of a long term Catholic couple who is engaged, but concieved out of wedlock, the third is a long term Catholic couple who conceived out of wedlock, but does not want to be married, and the fourth is a single mother or couple who are nominally catholic and want their child to be baptized due to pressure by their parents, or due to social norms.
Not all of these situations can be handled the same way by a priest. It is my understanding that a priest is not allowed to *ordinarily * baptize those out of communion with the Catholic Church (aka a Lutheran would probably be denied baptism by a priest unless there were extenuating circumstances). Likewise, Catholic who implicitly excommunicate themselves may fall under the above category. If I understand the process, there must be “reasonable assurance” that the child will be raised Catholic." Not that living together or having a child out of wedlock rules out this reasonable assurance, but it must be one factor discerned by the pastor of the parish - or the bishop.
No one would suggest that a woman who made a mistake should be denied the baptism of their child, however it is dangerous to create a mindset of "baptism on demand’ simply to avoid someone feeling judged. The sacraments should not be taken lightly, but if at all possible I believe they should err on the side of mercy.
This issue is a complex one. There are several situations that must be taken into account. The first is of a truely single mother who made a mistake and wants her baby to be baptized into the Church. The second is of a long term Catholic couple who is engaged, but concieved out of wedlock, the third is a long term Catholic couple who conceived out of wedlock, but does not want to be married, and the fourth is a single mother or couple who are nominally catholic and want their child to be baptized due to pressure by their parents, or due to social norms.
Not all of these situations can be handled the same way by a priest. It is my understanding that a priest is not allowed to *ordinarily * baptize those out of communion with the Catholic Church (aka a Lutheran would probably be denied baptism by a priest unless there were extenuating circumstances). Likewise, Catholic who implicitly excommunicate themselves may fall under the above category. If I understand the process, there must be “reasonable assurance” that the child will be raised Catholic." Not that living together or having a child out of wedlock rules out this reasonable assurance, but it must be one factor discerned by the pastor of the parish - or the bishop.
No one would suggest that a woman who made a mistake should be denied the baptism of their child, however it is dangerous to create a mindset of "baptism on demand’ simply to avoid someone feeling judged. The sacraments should not be taken lightly, but if at all possible I believe they should err on the side of mercy.
- Status