Cohabitation before marraige

[JimG]

But, that would depend on the couple, right? You have “commitment-minded” couples and “non commitment-minded” couples. Commitment-minded couples tend to not live together before marriage and tend to not get divorced. Non commitment-minded couples tend to live together before marriage and tend to get divorced. So the cause of the divorce is being commitment-minded or non commitment-minded, not live together before marriage.

If that’s the case, then the “non commitment-minded” couples both cohabit and marry without commitment. But lack of commitment at the outset of a marriage is grounds for nullity in the first place: no intention of permanence or fidelity. So their marriages are likely void from the beginning. Thus the number of divorces and annulments.

The solution is not to accept cohabitation. It is to reserve sex for marriage and marriage for commitment minded couples who intend fidelity, permanence, and openness to children.

 

[Julianna]

It seems the Bishops are yielding to popular sentiments over church doctrine in that they now allow cohabiting couples to marry in the Church. I believe the popular phrase was “living in sin”. Why the change and is this a good thing?

Not sure what you mean by “popular sentiments”. Do you mean as in, 2010? If so, you are kind of behind the times. My DH and I co-habitated for 3 yrs. we were married in 1981…and I guess we are not the statistic…we are still married. My cousin cohabitated for close to 6 yrs and was married in the Church in 1979.

Yes it is true, we were asked to separate before the wedding, but the number of specific days were not mentioned. I think it was about a week for us.

But, new, no it’s not new. Not sure if it was a change…we went to Mass, we didn’t receive Eucharist though…but we were there. Our priest’s reaction was, “You are here now.” We attended pre-Cana.

Not sure what to tell your students. When I taught 8th grade CCD, the subject never came up.

 

[dandon6]

If that’s the case, then the “non commitment-minded” couples both cohabit and marry without commitment. But lack of commitment at the outset of a marriage is grounds for nullity in the first place: no intention of permanence or fidelity. So their marriages are likely void from the beginning. Thus the number of divorces and annulments.

The solution is not to accept cohabitation. It is to reserve sex for marriage and marriage for commitment minded couples who intend fidelity, permanence, and openness to children.

Bingo, Jim. You hit the nail on the head. Its plain to see what’s going on. Fifty years ago, very few if any Bishops or priests would have married a cohabiting couple. Now, because its acceptable in general society, the Bishops are bending the rules to cater to the public.
Society is guiding the Bishops instead of the Bishops guiding society.

 

[dandon6]

Not sure what you mean by “popular sentiments”. Do you mean as in, 2010? If so, you are kind of behind the times. My DH and I co-habitated for 3 yrs. we were married in 1981…and I guess we are not the statistic…we are still married. My cousin cohabitated for close to 6 yrs and was married in the Church in 1979.

Yes it is true, we were asked to separate before the wedding, but the number of specific days were not mentioned. I think it was about a week for us.

But, new, no it’s not new. Not sure if it was a change…we went to Mass, we didn’t receive Eucharist though…but we were there. Our priest’s reaction was, “You are here now.” We attended pre-Cana.

Not sure what to tell your students. When I taught 8th grade CCD, the subject never came up.

 

[Julianna]

dandon, were you going to comment?

 

[dandon6]

Julianna,

How about fifty years ago? The sexual revolution of the sixties had a profound effect on society and on the Church. You saw bishops tolerate sexual deviants in the priesthhood, and a general relaxation of Church policy regarding sexual activity. The church was the last institution that stood up for traditional marriage. Now it is caving in. Now, as a result of these shifting values, we have over 50% divorce rate and over 3000 abortions per day.

Did you see the quotes from the catechism? (paragraph 2390 and 2391) Do you think the policy is consistent with the catechism? The church should not make rules based on statistics, but on the workd of God. Our 8th grade textbook (Faith and Life) has a chapter on family life which clearly states that sex outisde of sacramental marriage is sinful.

 

[Corki]

Not sure what to tell your students. When I taught 8th grade CCD, the subject never came up.

This thread has taken some twists and turns. But what subject specifically are you saying “never came up”. Because the sinfulness of sex before marriage starts “coming up” in the CCD material around 4th grade. In our parish, it is a “big deal” at Confirmation time since invariably there are some people chosen as Confirmation sponsors who have to step down because they are living with a partner without benefit of marriage making them inelgible to be sponsors.

 

[Corki]

Bingo, Jim. You hit the nail on the head. Its plain to see what’s going on. Fifty years ago, very few if any Bishops or priests would have married a cohabiting couple. Now, because its acceptable in general society, the Bishops are bending the rules to cater to the public.
Society is guiding the Bishops instead of the Bishops guiding society.

Fifty years ago, very few cohabitating couples would have admited it to a Bishop or priest. Most wouldn’t even have admited it to parents and friends.

 

[Julianna]

Julianna,

How about fifty years ago? The sexual revolution of the sixties had a profound effect on society and on the Church. You saw bishops tolerate sexual deviants in the priesthhood, and a general relaxation of Church policy regarding sexual activity. The church was the last institution that stood up for traditional marriage. Now it is caving in. Now, as a result of these shifting values, we have over 50% divorce rate and over 3000 abortions per day.

Did you see the quotes from the catechism? (paragraph 2390 and 2391) Do you think the policy is consistent with the catechism? The church should not make rules based on statistics, but on the workd of God. Our 8th grade textbook (Faith and Life) has a chapter on family life which clearly states that sex outisde of sacramental marriage is sinful.

I understand your concerns, really I do. We went to Mass and when marriage came into the picture, we went to see our priest. At that time we told him we had been living together. He wasn’t mad, he didn’t lecture, he didn’t pound his fist on the desk. All he said was, “You’re here now,” And he knew we were coming to Mass and he also knew we were not taking communion.

I can’t tell you how many friends I knew at the time, both Catholic and Protestant who wouldn’t tell their priest or pastor…and some…not even their parents. The parish was my home parish and we lived about 15 miles away in another city.

The Church doesn’t make rules based on statistics…that is clear. Also, a couple doesn’t have to be living together to have sex. I guess my DH and myself are the small percentage that survived…29 yrs and counting.

As far as sexual deviants…if you review when the scandals first broke, fingers were not pointing to post Vat2 priests, but to priests who served in the 40’s and 50’s. The adults who were children at the time, are my age or older. Fifty years ago was 1960. The Beatles haven’t begun to sing “I wanna hold your hand” and the counterculture hadn’t started.

When I taught CCD…my students were more interested in the history of the Church vs. the rules and regs. I had a lot of “grunge” students in my class and the last thing they wanted to hear were rules and regs…however, they were fascinated by the history and how the Catholic Church had survived all these years.

 

[LilyM]

Fifty years ago, very few cohabitating couples would have admited it to a Bishop or priest. Most wouldn’t even have admited it to parents and friends.

True, and there’s no indication that those who WEREN’T cohabiting weren’t still having premarital sex, as the number of ‘shotgun’ weddings among our parents and grandparents generations amply proves.

THOSE couples were married, although equally sinful and scandalous (pregnancy prior to wedlock can’t exactly be disguised, after all - at least once the child is born and people can do the math!)

 

[dandon6]

In 1930, the Episcopal Church voted to allow artificial contraception. Prior to that, they had always taught that artificial contraception was sinful. They caved in to public opinion. One of the hallmarks of the Catholic Church is (was?) that it doesn’t change their teachings. What was true a hundred (or a thousand) years ago is still true today and for eternity. God’s word does not change. “What God has joined together…”. Isn’t God claiming here the right to join man and woman together the same way he joined Adam and Eve? We are happy and fulfilled when we obey God’s word.

 

[Julianna]

This thread has taken some twists and turns. But what subject specifically are you saying “never came up”. Because the sinfulness of sex before marriage starts “coming up” in the CCD material around 4th grade. In our parish, it is a “big deal” at Confirmation time since invariably there are some people chosen as Confirmation sponsors who have to step down because they are living with a partner without benefit of marriage making them inelgible to be sponsors.

I had 30, 1 hour sessions with these kids. I also don’t think it is my place to discuss sex in any form with them. The parents are the first catechists…and by 8th grade, I knew these kids were not sleeping at the switch. I taught in the late 80’s early 90’s…grunge music was in, defeatism, angst, and hopelessness were the order of the day. My students really got into the “history” of the Church. I didn’t have any sponsors that were living together, then again, it wasn’t any of my business. I didn’t grill their sponsors under a bright light with a rubber hose. I myself sponsored over 5 candidates in that time.

 

[LilyM]

In 1930, the Episcopal Church voted to allow artificial contraception. Prior to that, they had always taught that artificial contraception was sinful. They caved in to public opinion. One of the hallmarks of the Catholic Church is (was?) that it doesn’t change their teachings. What was true a hundred (or a thousand) years ago is still true today and for eternity. God’s word does not change. “What God has joined together…”. Isn’t God claiming here the right to join man and woman together the same way he joined Adam and Eve? We are happy and fulfilled when we obey God’s word.

What was true a hundred or a thousand years ago, and is still true today, is that a couple who have been cohabiting but are now repentant and seeking God’s blessing on their marriage should not be denied that blessing.

The very fact that, in spite of every temptation to continue merely cohabiting, the couple have decided to seek sacramental union, is strong evidence of repentance. So is the fact that they will, undoubtedly, have received counselling and voluntarily gone to confession before the wedding.

What is the alternative, after all, that they be denied the sacrament for reason of their past sexual sins? And then what? Continue to cohabit, as they almost certainly will? How is that in any way better? Why not then deny marriage to anyone with any history of past sexual sins - to me, for example, since 10 years ago I was in a sexual relationship without benefit of marriage?

‘Better marry than burn’, as St Paul said. What HE said 2,000 years ago is equally true today. The Church is perhaps a bit wiser about such matters now, is all.

 

[Corki]

I had 30, 1 hour sessions with these kids. I also don’t think it is my place to discuss sex in any form with them. The parents are the first catechists…and by 8th grade, I knew these kids were not sleeping at the switch. I taught in the late 80’s early 90’s…grunge music was in, defeatism, angst, and hopelessness were the order of the day. My students really got into the “history” of the Church. I didn’t have any sponsors that were living together, then again, it wasn’t any of my business. I didn’t grill their sponsors under a bright light with a rubber hose. I myself sponsored over 5 candidates in that time.

I am hoping that at some point before your students got to you in 8th grade, some teacher had taken the time to go over the 10 Commandments. I guess each diocese is different. In our diocese the Commandments are covered spirally, each Commandment is discussed (in more detail and with more mature material) at least every two years. Church History isn’t in the curriculum in any detail until high school and even then, we don’t spend a whole year on it.

We didn’t “grill” any sponsors either. But the Confirmation candidates were told what the requirements were for their sponsors. Some (or many) of these people didn’t have any shame about their irregular living arrangements so the kids knew who they needed to cross off their lists.

 

[Julianna]

I am hoping that at some point before your students got to you in 8th grade, some teacher had taken the time to go over the 10 Commandments. I guess each diocese is different. In our diocese the Commandments are covered spirally, each Commandment is discussed (in more detail and with more mature material) at least every two years. Church History isn’t in the curriculum in any detail until high school and even then, we don’t spend a whole year on it.

We didn’t “grill” any sponsors either. But the Confirmation candidates were told what the requirements were for their sponsors. Some (or many) of these people didn’t have any shame about their irregular living arrangements so the kids knew who they needed to cross off their lists.

Sure 10 Commandments were discussed in more detail prior to 8th grade. We didn’t spend a year on it, but as I recall it was something the kids were really interested in. The DRE had a parent and sponsors meeting and went over the sponsor requirements and though I was not there at that particular meeting, I am sure it was discussed.

 

[Corki]

What was true a hundred or a thousand years ago, and is still true today, is that a couple who have been cohabiting but are now repentant and seeking God’s blessing on their marriage should not be denied that blessing.

The very fact that, in spite of every temptation to continue merely cohabiting, the couple have decided to seek sacramental union, is strong evidence of repentance. So is the fact that they will, undoubtedly, have received counselling and voluntarily gone to confession before the wedding.

What is the alternative, after all, that they be denied the sacrament for reason of their past sexual sins? And then what? Continue to cohabit, as they almost certainly will? How is that in any way better? Why not then deny marriage to anyone with any history of past sexual sins - to me, for example, since 10 years ago I was in a sexual relationship without benefit of marriage?

I agree that couples who repent of past sin and want to come into a sacramental marriage should not be denied.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that deciding to get married is evidence of any repentance on the couples part. Many couples choose to live together as a step toward marriage, not instead of marriage. They may or may not regret the intermediate step. It would be up to the priest to determine if there is repentance or not.

 

[LilyM]

I agree that couples who repent of past sin and want to come into a sacramental marriage should not be denied.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that deciding to get married is evidence of any repentance on the couples part. Many couples choose to live together as a step toward marriage, not instead of marriage. They may or may not regret the intermediate step. It would be up to the priest to determine if there is repentance or not.

Yes, cohabitation may be a step towards getting married. Bear in mind that these couples who don’t regret and repent of cohabiting can and do choose to get married elswhere, in places where they won’t be reminded of Church teaching, nor told to go to confession, nor have to jump through all the other hoops of receiving the sacrament in the Catholic church.

My sister is a prime example. Although raised Catholic, she fell away from the faith. She cohabited for along time, and eventually had a civil wedding. And her continuing unrepentance and unbelief means she has NOT sought a church wedding, even though her not doing so has sadly disappointed our parents.

 

[JimG]

Bingo, Jim. You hit the nail on the head. Its plain to see what’s going on. Fifty years ago, very few if any Bishops or priests would have married a cohabiting couple. Now, because its acceptable in general society, the Bishops are bending the rules to cater to the public.
Society is guiding the Bishops instead of the Bishops guiding society.

Please understand, I’m not advocating that cohabiting couples be refused the sacrament of marriage. That would not even be possible. The Church’s position is generally that everyone has a right to marry unless some impediment prevents it.

Cohabitation rather than marriage is certainly a sign of lack of commitment to fidelity and permanence. Conversely, seeking marriage may be a sign of a commitment to fidelity and permanence. Some catechesis ought to be provided. Couples ought to review the wedding vows ahead of time so that when they recite them they mean them, and will abide by every word.

But men and women who have come to adulthood in the past forty years have been taught, in every way imaginable, that sex and commitment are not related, that everyone must have sex, at least by the second date, or by the seventh grade, that sex before marriage is to be expected and is absolutely normal, and that if you’re not having sex there must be something wrong with you. These messages have been absorbed by osmosis through the overwhelming teaching of the popular culture. While some couples have managed to make a valid and lasting marriage in spite of prior cohabitation, countless families and children have been seriously damaged through the dominance of this popular culture.

I don’t advocate denying marriage to cohabiting couples who now wish to make their union real, formal, permanent, faithful, and indissoluble. But I do advocate a general return to chastity–for the sake of individuals, marriages, families, children, and society.

 

[dandon6]

Jim, I agree that we should think of these couples as being “victims” of the cultural changes. They should be treated with compassion and understanding. But as you say, and I agree, we really need to turn the culture around towards more chaste values and the Church needs to take the lead on this. Sometimes, that involves kind of a “tough love” stance. Its very hard to be preaching against the sexual values of today’s society and at the same time to be sort of looking the other way by allowing these couples to marry. Somebody has to stand up and say “Enough!”. Things won’t turn around by themselves. Leadership is what is required here.

 

[j1akey]

No matter how many times it’s explained to me I don’t understand the objection to people living together first. I mean realistically you never REALLY know someone until you end up having to share the house or apartment or where ever it is you live. To use a crude analogy you usually test drive a car before you sign the paperwork.