The Bishops “allow cohabiting couples to marry in the Church”? I think more info is needed on this. Was/is it doctrine to refuse marriage to cohabiting couples? If it is/was, can you supply some actual examples where this has happened? Also, can you please cite where cohabiting couples are to be denied the sacrament (Canon Law, etc).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?
All couples marrying in the Church undergo some kind of pre-cana counseling which may include a requirement to live apart for a time before marriage.This paper is neither an official statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family nor of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It does not offer formal recommendations for action. It is intended as a resource paper, offering a compilation of resources and a reflection of the present “state of the question” regarding certain issues of cohabitation.
Having committed a sin in the past does not mean one is not allowed to get married in the Church. Cohabitation is still a sin and should be confessed. But once the couple has repented and seeks to get married, it isn’t held against them.Many diocesan marriage preparation policies suggest that pastoral ministers encourage cohabiting couples to separate. They recognize that this is a desirable goal to propose and to achieve – not because the Church is so concerned with the fact of separate addresses but because it declares that conjugal love needs to be definitive; “it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further notice’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1646). Even if the couple chooses not to separate, they can be encouraged to live chastely before marriage. “They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2350).
With all couples, celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is properly encouraged as part of marriage preparation for the Catholic party or parties. The Catechism states: “It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1622).
I am not seeing any contradiction here.It should be noted that absolute moral rectitude is not demanded for sacraments to be celebrated.
I agree that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. However, in the original post you almost sounded as though that those people that cohabitate should be denied marriage within the Church. This is why I asked for clarification. In my situation, I was serving in the military. I met my future wife and eventually we decided to marry. We went to a Priest who told us that we had to attend “marriage prep” classes and would have to wait approx a year to be married. Well, I came down on orders to be relocated. Therefore, we decided that the only way (for the time being) to wed was to have a civil marriage and later have that marriage convalidated. Approximately a year later (after having been civilly married) we went to another Priest and were told that if we attended an Engaged Encounter weekend that he would marry us in the Church sacramentally. We did, and were married within the Church. I just wanted clarification as to whether or not you were suggesting that those who marry civilly, and therefore not within a valid sacramental marriage, should also be denied a sacramental marriage. If you were saying that my wife and I should have been denied marriage within the Church, then I was hoping that you would provide reference via canon law (or another authoritative source on the subject).Tietjen, I found this in the catechism:
2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.
The expression “free union” is fallacious: what can “union” mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?
The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.183 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
Doesn’t this make sacramental marriage impossible? What does the phrase “excludes one from sacramental communion mean”?
do you have evidence of some or all bishops caving on this teaching. Every diocese which with I am familiar includes in particular law the provision that couples be counselled in marriage preparation against this abuse and that catechesis for youth and adults stress the proper teaching on marriage and sexuality. If you are going to make the general accusation please provide a basis for it.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?
When quoting the title BIshops, every Bishop of the world is involved with the agendas presented. Just like this nonsense on LGBT lifestyles, so-called women priests, so-called same sex marriage, abortion.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?
lMaybe the confusion is over the issue of requiring the cohabiting couples to live separately. Some priests (like Fr. Pfleger) are adamant and will refuse to marry a couple if they will not agree to live separately prior to marriage, whereas others may just be glad to “make honest couples out of them”, as the saying goes.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?
That would seem to make sense BUT statistics don’t play it out. Couples who cohabitate before marriage have higher divorce rates than those who don’t live together. My dad (who isn’t even Catholic) came up with a theory about this: when a couple moves in together, they have a non-commital attitude - “if it works out, good, if it doesn’t, we can move on” and then when they get married they never let go of that attitude whereas people going into marriage without living together start out their combined lives with the “till death do us part” mentality.I think cohabitation benefits marriage, by allowing hormone driven young couples to defer a wedding until they are more mature.
When very young couples marry, even Catholics, their marriages tend to be less stable. If they wait at least until their late twenties, increased maturity and judgment help them to make a better spousal choice.
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.That would seem to make sense BUT statistics don’t play it out. Couples who cohabitate before marriage have higher divorce rates than those who don’t live together.
My dad (who isn’t even Catholic) came up with a theory about this: when a couple moves in together, they have a non-commital attitude - “if it works out, good, if it doesn’t, we can move on” and then when they get married they never let go of that attitude whereas people going into marriage without living together start out their combined lives with the “till death do us part” mentality.
Presumably they’ve received the Sacrament of Reconciliation and are absolved of their mortal sin before the Sacrament of Marriage. To me, it’s not different than a couple that has a child together before getting married.sn’t sex ouside of sacramental marriage a mortal sin? How can one receive a sacrament in this state.
The Church isn’t saying that premarital sex is fine, the Church is saying that sins can be forgiven and aren’t necessarily a black mark. From what I’ve heard, usually cohabiting couples are required to separate a few months before the marriage or to at least abstain from marital relations.I am conflicted because I am an eigth grade CCD teacher and our book says that sex outside of Sacramental marriage is a mortal sin and this is what I have been teaching my students. Now the chruch seems to be saying " thats okay, you can still get married in the Church regardless." I’m having trouble teaching this doctrine if the church isn’t going to back it up. They are talking the talk but not walking the walk.
I wasn’t trying to determine the cause and effect relationship of the two (although I’m pretty sure we can’t prove that one does or doesn’t exist at this point) - my point was the idea that cohabitation does anything to prevent divorce, although it does SEEM logical does not play out in reality as couples who live together before marriage actually have higher divorce rates than those who don’t.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. **
You’ll find a correlation between divorce and cohabitation because they are both symptoms of the same disease, but one doesn’t cause the other. Just like if I have the flu, I might have a fever and nausea, but the nausea doesn’t cause the fever, even though you’ll often find that I have the two together. Similarly, it’s possible to have a fever and not have the flu.