Co-habiting before marriage

[Chalice]

Deacon Ed:

Just out of curiosity, what “corrective action” do you think would be effective?

Deacon Ed

I think the Church has to be seriously demanding and uniform about people not living together until they are married. In essence, you wouldn’t want couples even approaching the Church to be married until they had already taken care of this issue.

Extremely lax “what could I possibly do?” attitudes are what have allowed this sort of thing to prosper over many years.

Yes, society was different 50 years ago when this wasn’t as nearly as big an issue, but other things have also changed that now demand review. That’s what I would focus on.

 

[netmilsmom]

dulcissima:

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Let’s not forget God’s love and mercy. I think it is right for the Church to hold up the ideal, but how can you expect the Church to go about ENFORCING the ideal? What do you think the end result would be, how many people would be driven away from the Church, thinking that what they DEMAND (not what they ask) is impossible for them to live up to? How many people would submit only out of fear? That does not sound like Christ’s Church to me.

I think that this is what our dear Pope is addressing right now. He wants a leaner more devout church. Remember the phrase, “Go Forth and sin no more.”? Jesus didn’t add, if it’s convenient.

If you want to drive a car, you have to get a drivers license. If you want a big church wedding, there are rules to be followed as well.

If they are “driven” away from the church, they are there for the ceremony only. They will be back when they want the first baby baptised.

And as for it being “impossible”, anything is possible with God.

 

[Sanctus]

Deacon Ed:

You are now asking for a subjective reading. Remember that the Church, though canon law, provides objective statements about how the Church is to conduct herself. Under present canon law your proposal would be impossible. Since no cleric can ask more than the Church does it is not possible to provide “corrective action” such as you suggest.

Deacon Ed

We do provide for penalties for people living in an obstinate state of sin–I.E.–they can’t receive Holy Communion. Now for those who sin publicly are forced to make a public repentance. This of course requires the penitent to be Honest–it’s really simple and really enforcable to just transfer that to Marriage. I think it’s absurd to just think “oh, well, we can’t really stop them–I guess we’ll marry 'em.” When couples come to their pastor for marriage counceling and the priest asks if they are co-habititing and doing other things associated with that, if they answer “yes we are” then the Priest should give them a little refresher on Catholic Moral Theology and Sexual Morality…then remand them both to him exclusivley for the Sacrament of Confession (already within his power.) Then the Priest and the couple can make a mature decision on when the couple is truly prepared to live out their Catholic Baptisimal promises.

 

[TX_Michele]

Thank you all for responding & so quickly! I will pass this thread on to my friend & hope she takes it as I am giving, out of concern for her & her fiance. I know that utimately it is up to them on how they embrace the teaching of the Church & how much reverence they have for the sacrament itself.

When I married my husband (20+ yrs ago), I was a lapsed Catholic & he had converted, so he was a much better Catholic then I was. Anyway, we, too, lived together before we got married :tsktsk: , but since then I have ‘come home’ to the church and realized how irreverent we were in doing it, not to mention sinful. I thank the Lord for his loving forgiveness for this sin & all the others I have committed & will commit in my lifetime (ain’t love grand ).

Now that you know that I will pass this thread on to my friend, please feel free to give her any heartfelt advice.

Michele
P.S. SherryLynn9, I’ll pray for you, too.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sanctus:

We do provide for penalties for people living in an obstinate state of sin–I.E.–they can’t receive Holy Communion.

No, they are not supposed to receive communion. Unless they are excommunicated or under the interdict who knows? They can go if they want. It’s wrong, and simply adds another sin, but the Church does not police the sacraments.

Now for those who sin publicly are forced to make a public repentance. This of course requires the penitent to be Honest–it’s really simple and really enforcable to just transfer that to Marriage.

Well, sure, drive 'em out of the Church so we don’t have to worry about them. That is, of course, the result of trying to do this.

The Church is a “hospital for sinners” and if we drive all the sinners out it will be empty.

I think it’s absurd to just think “oh, well, we can’t really stop them–I guess we’ll marry 'em.” When couples come to their pastor for marriage counceling and the priest asks if they are co-habititing and doing other things associated with that, if they answer “yes we are” then the Priest should give them a little refresher on Catholic Moral Theology and Sexual Morality…then remand them both to him exclusivley for the Sacrament of Confession (already within his power.) Then the Priest and the couple can make a mature decision on when the couple is truly prepared to live out their Catholic Baptisimal promises.

And we do, indeed, do this. But we don’t go check their bedrooms to see if they comply. That is, there is no effective way to enforce morality!

BTW, it’s not just priests that prepare couples for marriage. More and more deacons are doing this – and witnessing their marriages as well.

Deacon Ed

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Deacon,

When you say the Church does not police the sacraments are you saying that “the Church SHOULD not police the sacraments”? Or are you saying they CANNOT because of lack of priests to do so?"

Many if not most Orthodox police the sacrament of Holy Eucharist to the point of often denying it to those who have not come to Confession. Is the difference primarily because Orthodox Churches tend to be smaller or is it because Catholic priests are instructed not to police the sacraments?

Dan L

 

[kage_ar]

Here is my suggestion. Father Joe meets with the couple for prep, and they are setting the schedule for the wedding:

Bride to Be “We will have the rehersal on Friday at 7”

Fr. Joe “Okay”

B2B “And the Wedding Mass on Saturday at 3 PM”

Fr. Joe - “Great, and I will schedule the Catholic members of the wedding party for confession beginning at 1 PM.”

B2B “Great, we will be here.”

 

[Sanctus]

Deacon Ed:

No, they are not supposed to receive communion. Unless they are excommunicated or under the interdict who knows? They can go if they want. It’s wrong, and simply adds another sin, but the Church does not police the sacraments.

Ahh but the Church does and should “police” the sacraments…as you said the church can excommunicate people, place an interdict on the, censure them–all “police” actions as the regulate someone’s access to the sacraments. Sure there are people who are not disposed to receive the Sacraments and do–but they are either lying to themselves or they are ignorent–but in the instance of couples coming for marriage prep with people co-habitating we’re already starting with a presumption of honesty–they’ve already come clean that they’re co-habitating. So that leaves ignorance–which is where the corrective action lies. Teach, guide, instruct them–offer them confession-which of course requires a firm purpose of ammendment to not sin again.
Deacon Ed:

Well, sure, drive 'em out of the Church so we don’t have to worry about them. That is, of course, the result of trying to do this.

No, don’t drive 'em out–rather keep em in. Keep 'em and fix 'em, don’t keep 'em and forget about 'em–or worse–turn a blind eye towards their obstinate sin.
Deacon Ed:

The Church is a “hospital for sinners” and if we drive all the sinners out it will be empty.

Hospital for Sinners I agree, wich fits into my idea of corrective action–you go to the hospital to get better–the Church is a place you go to receive God’s Grace and grow in holiness…it should not be a “Spa for Sinners” where these couples can come–in open defiance of Church teaching and then be coddeled for fear of “driving them out.”
Deacon Ed:

And we do, indeed, do this. But we don’t go check their bedrooms to see if they comply. That is, there is no effective way to enforce morality!

No we can’t check their beedrooms but we’re already operating on a presumption of honesty…and their is a way to enforce morality–and the Church does enforce morality through her “police” actions.
Deacon Ed:

BTW, it’s not just priests that prepare couples for marriage. More and more deacons are doing this – and witnessing their marriages as well.

Wonderful!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

GregoryPalamas:

Deacon,

When you say the Church does not police the sacraments are you saying that “the Church SHOULD not police the sacraments”? Or are you saying they CANNOT because of lack of priests to do so?"

Many if not most Orthodox police the sacrament of Holy Eucharist to the point of often denying it to those who have not come to Confession. Is the difference primarily because Orthodox Churches tend to be smaller or is it because Catholic priests are instructed not to police the sacraments?

Dan L

Dan,

This has nothing to do with the number of priests. The Church has choose, and her canon law reveals, that unless a Catholic is barred from receiving a sacrament through some canonical impediment, the Church is obligated to give the sacrament to that person. That is, Catholics have a right to the sacraments and cannot be denied if they are properly prepared and are not canonically prohibited.

The Orthodox Church has taken a slightly different perspective. Yet even in the Orthodox Church a co-habitating couple could receive the Mystery of Holy Crowning. In part this is out of economia since the very act of getting married addresses the root of the (presumed) sin of co-habitation.

To put it in context, Canon 843.1 says “Sacred ministrers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” (emphasis mine)

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sanctus:

Ahh but the Church does and should “police” the sacraments…as you said the church can excommunicate people, place an interdict on the, censure them–all “police” actions as the regulate someone’s access to the sacraments. Sure there are people who are not disposed to receive the Sacraments and do–but they are either lying to themselves or they are ignorent–but in the instance of couples coming for marriage prep with people co-habitating we’re already starting with a presumption of honesty–they’ve already come clean that they’re co-habitating. So that leaves ignorance–which is where the corrective action lies. Teach, guide, instruct them–offer them confession-which of course requires a firm purpose of ammendment to not sin again.

But fornication is not an act for which one can be excommunicated or placed under the interdict. The Church, ever a solicitous mother, tries hard to lead people to live good and holy lives. But she cannot live their lives for them So, no, canonically we cannot police the sacraments (see my reply to Dan above).

Deacon Ed

 

[Sanctus]

Deacon Ed:

But fornication is not an act for which one can be excommunicated or placed under the interdict. The Church, ever a solicitous mother, tries hard to lead people to live good and holy lives. But she cannot live their lives for them So, no, canonically we cannot police the sacraments (see my reply to Dan above).

Deacon Ed

Canonically we can and DO police the Sacraments–see my reply above. We place restrictions on the reception of every sacrament–every single one of them. All that would need to happen is to place a pre-requisite to marriage…argue amongst yourselves what it is…but it is most definantly possible.

 

[Mt19_26]

Deacon Ed:

Well, sure, drive 'em out of the Church so we don’t have to worry about them. That is, of course, the result of trying to do this.

The Church is a “hospital for sinners” and if we drive all the sinners out it will be empty.

And we do, indeed, do this. But we don’t go check their bedrooms to see if they comply. That is, there is no effective way to enforce morality!

If the priest or deacon knows for a fact that a couple is continuing to live in grave sin they should be refused the Sacrament of Marriage until they are out of the state of mortal sin. Cohabitating is a grave sin because it scandalizes the Church. The Truth should never be watered down just to appease people and keep them from leaving the Church.

 

[Mt19_26]

Deacon Ed:

Dan and Stephanie:
We are obligated by canon law to make the sacraments available to any and all Catholics who present themselves, are properly prepared, and who are not canonically prohibited from the sacraments.

A couple living together after having been told it’s wrong and why it’s wrong are not properly prepared. They are openly comitting an offense against the santity of marriage and thus do not fully understand what marriage involves. If they truly love each other they would realize they are placing each other’s souls in jeopardy and a person that truly loves never puts the person they love in situations dangerous to their soul. The only option a couple has is to stop cohabiting. Liberals like to bend the Truth and say, “Well if we can’t get them to stop cohabitating I guess we can just tell them to abstain from intimacy.” That is not enough because they are still scandalizing the Church and putting themselves in near occasion of sin on top of not understanding what marriage is.

 

[rwoehmke]

I dare say that in today’s society in America and even more so in Europe there are precious few left who are scadalized by co-habitation. It is more like a vast majority think we are fossils because it even bothers us. I know for a fact that four out of six of my own children, brought up in the Faith and having attended Catholic Universities co-habited. It was sort of like, “Well Dad you have your opinions, but than co-habitation makes more sense to us because (pick a reason).” Only one married in a non-Catholic ceremony. I can be most grateful that none of them resorted to abortion when that little bundle was going to arrive. As my father once said, “Most babies take nine months, but with the first one you can never be sure.” What is really discouragin is that most of the young folks I know who co-habited were otherwise what anyone would call “good people.” Some of them “Pillars of the Church” today.

 

[Sanctus]

I’ll say one other thing…and, as a young man in his twenties I’ll go ahead and speak for the younger generation. I have learned in my varied leadership positions that you have to set the standard of excellence and leave it there. If you “lower the bar” to allow more people to pass you’ll be amazed at how some people seem to degenerate and still manage to fall below the bar–but this time they fall even lower because you’ve set the bar lower.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mt19:26:

A couple living together after having been told it’s wrong and why it’s wrong are not properly prepared. They are openly comitting an offense against the santity of marriage and thus do not fully understand what marriage involves. If they truly love each other they would realize they are placing each other’s souls in jeopardy and a person that truly loves never puts the person they love in situations dangerous to their soul. The only option a couple has is to stop cohabiting. Liberals like to bend the Truth and say, “Well if we can’t get them to stop cohabitating I guess we can just tell them to abstain from intimacy.” That is not enough because they are still scandalizing the Church and putting themselves in near occasion of sin on top of not understanding what marriage is.

While I fully agree with most of what you have said, the Church does not define co-habitating to be an offense which would preclude marriage, or which would be interpreted as not being “properly disposed” (although a case could be made for objectively mortal sin being such a condition). The problem is that we can only deal with the objective action, not the subjective action.

As a deacon in the Church I am bound by canon law. Perhaps if the posters here who disagree with me wish to start their own Church, or to get Rome to change canon law then we can address this. Until then, I don’t have a choice and neither does any other cleric when it comes to marriage and co-habitating couples.

Deacon Ed

 

[Mt19_26]

rwoehmke:

I dare say that in today’s society in America and even more so in Europe there are precious few left who are scadalized by co-habitation. It is more like a vast majority think we are fossils because it even bothers us. I know for a fact that four out of six of my own children, brought up in the Faith and having attended Catholic Universities co-habited. It was sort of like, “Well Dad you have your opinions, but than co-habitation makes more sense to us because (pick a reason).” Only one married in a non-Catholic ceremony. I can be most grateful that none of them resorted to abortion when that little bundle was going to arrive. As my father once said, “Most babies take nine months, but with the first one you can never be sure.” What is really discouragin is that most of the young folks I know who co-habited were otherwise what anyone would call “good people.” Some of them “Pillars of the Church” today.

Yes, I’d have to agree that sadly co-habitation is seen as acceptable today by the vast majority of society. I attended my brothers wedding this past weekend. During the homily the priest spoke of cohabitation and why it was wrong, etc. After the Mass at the reception countless people were saying, “who does Father think he is” and “Father was ?#?!? me off during his homily”, etc. I could only guess at the time that the people whom were complaining were those that didn’t agree with what Father said. Sure enough, I later found that at least some of those complaining were cohabitating. I saw nothing wrong with the homily and frankly I think we need more priests that do not water down the Truth and teaching of the Church.

 

[Mt19_26]

Deacon Ed:

While I fully agree with most of what you have said, the Church does not define co-habitating to be an offense which would preclude marriage, or which would be interpreted as not being “properly disposed” (although a case could be made for objectively mortal sin being such a condition). The problem is that we can only deal with the objective action, not the subjective action.

As a deacon in the Church I am bound by canon law. Perhaps if the posters here who disagree with me wish to start their own Church, or to get Rome to change canon law then we can address this. Until then, I don’t have a choice and neither does any other cleric when it comes to marriage and co-habitating couples.

Deacon Ed

If Canon Law prohibits denying couples marriage who cohabitate it’s unfortunate and sadly it must be followed. Cohabitation is such a grave offense against the Sacrament of Matrimony that I can’t seem to understand why the Church would allow two people to marry when they can’t see the problem with it. I would hope that it’s eventually changed. Do you or anyone here know what the Eastern Rite and/or Eastern Orthodox do in situations where a couple wants to get married but refuses to stop cohabitating?

 

[Confiteor]

Mt19:26:

Yes, I’d have to agree that sadly co-habitation is seen as acceptable today by the vast majority of society. I attended my brothers wedding this past weekend. During the homily the priest spoke of cohabitation and why it was wrong, etc. After the Mass at the reception countless people were saying, “who does Father think he is” and “Father was ?#?!? me off during his homily”, etc. I could only guess at the time that the people whom were complaining were those that didn’t agree with what Father said. Sure enough, I later found that at least some of those complaining were cohabitating. I saw nothing wrong with the homily and frankly I think we need more priests that do not water down the Truth and teaching of the Church.

Brilliant! Obviously, weddings bring out folks who are not at Mass on other occasions --especially young couples–what a perfect time to remind people of Catholic teaching. They may have been angered, but I’ll bet some of their consciences twinge a bit…some may even have some second thoughts.

You’re right, though, with high school teachers and other adults living together openly and making no bones about it in front of the teenagers they are role models for, it is hard for youngsters not to think cohabiting is “normal.”

 

[HagiaSophia]

"…Cohabitation is becoming more common and losing its stigma in today’s society. USA Today recently reported that “more than two-thirds of married couples in the U.S. now say they lived together before marriage. And the number of unmarried opposite-sex households overall is rising dramatically …”

According to the U.S. Census, from 1996 to 2000 there was a tenfold increase in unmarried couples living together – meaning about 10 million people, or 8 percent of U.S. coupled households, are living with a partner of the opposite sex.

“In some sense, cohabitation is replacing dating,” said Pamela Smock, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan.

High housing costs and tight budgets are often motives for cohabitation. However, Marshall Miller, co-founder of the Alternatives to Marriage Project – a national nonprofit that advocates for the rights of the unmarried – believes that couples should not cohabit just because their leases are up.

“If one sees it as a way to save on rent and the other sees this as an engagement of sorts, then you’re going to be headed for trouble,” Miller explained.

Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said, “People who are cohabiting might end up marrying somebody they might not otherwise have married.” In other words, they’re “sliding not deciding.”

"People want what marriage signifies: that sense of ‘us with a future,’ " Stanley added. “But because of the high rates of divorce for the past few decades and many other circumstances, including decreased rates of marriage, there is really a crisis in confidence about the institution of marriage…”

headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/132005d.asp