Cohabitation

[nparente]

The teaching of the Catholic Church has been watered down when it comes to these issues so as not to offend anyone and or scare them away in my opinion.

You don’t hear Preists talking about this from the pulpit, you don’t hear the church discussing these matters in public forum’s, for that matter I can’t recall the Pope ever commenting on the subject that’s not to say he hasent in the past.

So it’s no wonder that people cohabitate and actuall start families in sin, who’s going to tell them there wrong if there parents haven’t discussed these issues.

Case in point my Wife and I have been married for 28 years prior to us being married we lived togeather for 1 1/2 years, my wifes Grandmother would not enter our condo because we where living in sin however once married there was no problem. I thought it was silly at the time but now as time has gone by and my understanding of the Church teachings have been clearly defined, I thank her for sharing her conviction with us.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was trying to reach agreement with you - don’t blow it now. I think theologically that the thinking may be that unlike the Eucharist marrying in the state of sin may not be a further sin. Also, it may be that (as you have said) the state of sin itself is not an impediment. Certainly, we agree that people should seek to marry in a state of grace.

That’s a good point to keep in mind. There must be balance. At the same time we don’t want to imply to cohabitating couples that this is OK or not seriously wrong and I am concerned that we may in some cases be a bit lax in this area.

These are fine points, especially in a culture that equates “legally allowed” with “morally acceptable.” This fallacy is the first and last refuge of the morally lax, Catholic or not!

That every Catholic has a right to freely enter into whatever marriage canon law says is possible for him or her does not imply that the Church teaches that every marriage or way of entering into marrige we have the legal right to choose would be an equally good choice!

Catholics are legally allowed by the Church to enter into marriage in a state of mortal sin, because the Church has discerned that when the proposed marriage will be valid, marriage is a right of the faithful. To say that cohabitation is not an impediment is only saying that the proposed marriage would be valid. The marriage is possible. The fact of the active cohabitation at the time of the marriage would not render the marriage null. Therefore, we have the right to choose to enter into that marriage, even if it might be a lousy choice and a barrier to our spiritual life.

This is a hundred miles away from saying that active cohabitation at the time of the marriage is morally permissible or even remotely a desirable state of affairs!

Priests are directed by the Church to counsel couples to avail themselves of confession before marriage. Although the Church does not go so far as withholding marriage to those in sin, because marriage is a right where the marriage itself is possible, the Church makes every effort up to the point of violating each soul’s free will to discourage any violations of chastity, before or after marriage. Where the Church restrains herself in this area, the reasons are either practical pastoral reasons or else respect for the free will and human rights God gives to each of us.

Let’s cede the point that there is additional sin committed if we’re made aware of a mortal sin by a priest and stubbornly refuse his advise to confess it, whether or not a marriage is on the horizon. This is elementary, I think. Let’s not get into whether some level of psychological denial constitutes invincible ignorance or mitigates culpability. That is beyond our purposes here.

Should a Catholic who is engaging in sex prior to marriage cease to do so until the marriage takes place? Yes, absolutely! Should they cease to cohabitate with their intended spouse, if they are doing that? Except when there are children involved (who have an overriding need to live with both parents) or when there truly is another extremity, yes.

Does the Church refuse marriage on the grounds of refusal to do these things? No. If the intended marriage will be valid, the Church may require certain preparations, but the Church will not require these things as a condition that supercedes the sacred right to marry.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

She should have listened to the advice of The Priest, to go to confession. If she doesnt believe that cohabitation is a sin, what else doesnt she believe, why would she even want a Catholic Marriage, I dont get it, I dont blame the Priest for walking out., in disgust.Some of these people who the Priest has to put up with is enuff to make a priest throw his hands up. No wonder some of them stray, it`s a thankless job that they do in a lot of cases.

Yes, at times, being a priest can be a thankless job. But other people who regularly feel they are doing a thankless job are police, fire fighters, teachers, etc. Would you justify a policeman violating your civil rights just because he feels he has a thankless job? Of course not. In the same way, it is the duty of the priest to administer the sacraments of the Church in the manner put forth by the Church. It is not his perogative to simply do what he wants when he wants.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Church does have the right to refuse a couple the sacrament of marriage. Just like they are the right to refuse an individual they who is admittedly living in mortal sin the sacrament of communion. Or Someone who confesses their sins but is not sorry.

Well, the priest, as far as I know, is only allowed to refuse communion to a “notorious sinner”. Otherwise, as far as I remember, the canon states the responsibility is on the layperson not to present oneself for communion and not on the priest to refuse.
Otherwise, you’re bring up situations that are specifically dealt with in canon law. On the issue of marriage, canon law and the bishop’s conference has been quite clear: cohabitation is not in and of itself an impediment to marriage.

If it was just the “couples decision” then the Church would be forced to have gay marriage or marriage of 40 year old men and a kid, or polygamy. The Church has the right to deny any sacrament when it so chooses.

The Church does so as set forth in her canons. As previously stated, the canons do not currently set forth cohabitation as an impediment. Priests can’t just make up their own rules.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

saying there are some couples he wouldn’t want them to be so close to the altar.

Soldiers played dice for Jesus’s clothes at the foot of the first altar. So I fail to see how a cohabitating couple could be worse.

 

[Cinette]

Both my daughters lived with men before they eventually got married (not to those men).

However, I want to say this. It is very, very wrong to cohabit because it is just like being married and a relationship that might last no more than a few months will last longer - sometimes as much as 5 years or more because it is like getting divorced. It is very painful. I remember my daughter not wanting to leave her guy because she “didn’t want to hurt him” and so she put it off. This would not happen if they were not cohabitating. The same thing happened to both my daughters and I am totally against it. Imagine if there were childfren!!!

If anyone who is thinking of cohabitating with someone reads this please listen to me - DON’T! It will bring you a lot of sorrow. It is WRONG.

Don’t forget that when you have sex with someone it will play havoc with your hormones and you will make mistakes. Ever heard of oxitocin?

 

[NoWhereMan]

Yes, at times, being a priest can be a thankless job. But other people who regularly feel they are doing a thankless job are police, fire fighters, teachers, etc. Would you justify a policeman violating your civil rights just because he feels he has a thankless job? Of course not. In the same way, it is the duty of the priest to administer the sacraments of the Church in the manner put forth by the Church. It is not his perogative to simply do what he wants when he wants.

The way I see it is that the Priest told them what was expected of them, if she didnt think enuff of going to confession, & blatantly didnt, then again I say why did she bother, just stay cohabitating, she wasnt getting married because she was sinning by cohabitating, she saw no sin in it, so why bother, it couldnt have meant that much to her. If she didnt think she was sinning by cohabitating, what else does she think is not a sin, she should have been glad to oblige, if it was about getting married Catholic. Another thing, the Priests are fed up with these Catholic people cohabitating for yrs together & then wanting a Catholic Marriage, after they have three & four kids, but yet when You go to Church, You see the whole congregation going to the altar for the Eucharist, The priests know something is wrong with this too, the confession line is so short but yet a thousand people go to the altar to receive, they commit sacrilege & think nothing of it. I am for the Priest, they are our spiritual leaders, why go to them if You don`t heed what they advise

 

[EasterJoy]

The way I see it is that the Priest told them what was expected of them, if she didnt think enuff of going to confession, & blatantly didnt, then again I say why did she bother, just stay cohabitating, she wasnt getting married because she was sinning by cohabitating, she saw no sin in it, so why bother, it couldnt have meant that much to her. If she didnt think she was sinning by cohabitating, what else does she think is not a sin, she should have been glad to oblige, if it was about getting married Catholic. Another thing, the Priests are fed up with these Catholic people cohabitating for yrs together & then wanting a Catholic Marriage, after they have three & four kids, but yet when You go to Church, You see the whole congregation going to the altar for the Eucharist, The priests know something is wrong with this too, the confession line is so short but yet a thousand people go to the altar to receive, they commit sacrilege & think nothing of it. I am for the Priest, they are our spiritual leaders, why go to them if You don`t heed what they advise

The hypothetical bride in question is in the wrong, and you’ll get no quarrel on that from anyone here.

If she literally does not hold to the Church’s teaching on marriage itself, though–if she has no plan to be faithful, to be open to children, and so on–then that is an impediment to marriage. If a person were to go to a priest and say openly, “Oh, if I don’t like my wife after awhile, I can always divorce her or take a lover on the side” or “I don’t want children and I’m going to see to it that I won’t be having any”, then that would be cause for him to deny that person marriage in the Church. The proposed marriage would be invalid, so the person has no right to enter into it. As it is, though, this hypothetical bride holds an incorrect opinion as to what is morally permissible for couples before marriage. Being wrong or stubborn or disobedient about that is not an impediment to marriage. Likewise, just because she is still allowed marriage does not mean she is not wrong, stubborn, and disobedient all the same.

You are also preaching to the choir with respect to the necessity of staying in grace and refraining from Holy Communion when one is separated from communion with Christ and His Church by reason of willfully chosen serious sin.

The question is only this: is it allowed for a priest to deny to marry couples who are cohabitating? The answer is no, it is not allowed. It is his duty to strenuously encourage the couple to confess and to remain chaste for the rest of their lives. Nobody is arguing that. He may not, however, take it upon himself to deny two Catholics seeking to enter into a valid marriage. It is not allowed.

It is similar to this question: If a priest in mortal sin says Mass, does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? The answer is yes. Now, a priest has no “right” to say Mass. Still less would anyone want him to think that it is* good* for him to say Mass with a mortal sin on his soul, just because he can! But people do have a right to marriage, provided the proposed marriage is valid. This right limits what options a priest has when faced with this problem. This is another question on what the exact thorns are in a bad situation, though, and what can and cannot be done about it. Nobody is saying that the situation is good.

So, we may also be in the situation of having gone to our shepherds for a binding opinion, and not liking the answer we get. Like it or not, the answer is binding. The priests’ hands are tied: according to canon law, they have to perform these weddings. We have to live with it, too.

 

[NoWhereMan]

The hypothetical bride in question is in the wrong, and you’ll get no quarrel on that from anyone here.

If she literally does not hold to the Church’s teaching on marriage itself, though–if she has no plan to be faithful, to be open to children, and so on–then that is an impediment to marriage. If a person were to go to a priest and say openly, “Oh, if I don’t like my wife after awhile, I can always divorce her or take a lover on the side” or “I don’t want children and I’m going to see to it that I won’t be having any”, then that would be cause for him to deny that person marriage in the Church. The proposed marriage would be invalid, so the person has no right to enter into it. As it is, though, this hypothetical bride holds an incorrect opinion as to what is morally permissible for couples before marriage. Being wrong or stubborn or disobedient about that is not an impediment to marriage. Likewise, just because she is still allowed marriage does not mean she is not wrong, stubborn, and disobedient all the same.

You are also preaching to the choir with respect to the necessity of staying in grace and refraining from Holy Communion when one is separated from communion with Christ and His Church by reason of willfully chosen serious sin.

The question is only this: is it allowed for a priest to deny to marry couples who are cohabitating? The answer is no, it is not allowed. It is his duty to strenuously encourage the couple to confess and to remain chaste for the rest of their lives. Nobody is arguing that. He may not, however, take it upon himself to deny two Catholics seeking to enter into a valid marriage. It is not allowed.

It is similar to this question: If a priest in mortal sin says Mass, does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? The answer is yes. Now, a priest has no “right” to say Mass. Still less would anyone want him to think that it is* good* for him to say Mass with a mortal sin on his soul, just because he can! But people do have a right to marriage, provided the proposed marriage is valid. This right limits what options a priest has when faced with this problem. This is another question on what the exact thorns are in a bad situation, though, and what can and cannot be done about it. Nobody is saying that the situation is good.

So, we may also be in the situation of having gone to our shepherds for a binding opinion, and not liking the answer we get. Like it or not, the answer is binding. The priests’ hands are tied: according to canon law, they have to perform these weddings. We have to live with it, too.

I dont know if You have noticed, but I have, the priests are subtly trying to get across to a lot of these pick & choose Catholics about the teachings of the Church, they have let it go too far, so its now hard to reign them in, they make comments about the Confession line being short, they make remarks like You should be reconciled before partaking of the Eucharist. I been seeing these things lately at mass & on the Ewtn mass. They know that a lot of sacriliges are being committed, they have to be subtle tho because if they arent , the Churches will empty out, people wanna hear what they wanna here only, if they dont like the priest treading so to speak on their lifestyle, they are out of there. I talk to many Catholics out side of church, & I am amazed at how they feel about their church. Yrs ago, Catholics made sacrifice for the Religion, today, if their comfort is compromized, they want nothing to do with it

 

[Sarabande]

Soldiers played dice for Jesus’s clothes at the foot of the first altar. So I fail to see how a cohabitating couple could be worse.

The reason why our priest friend said this had less to do with a couple cohabitating (I’m sure he’d be happier that they were no longer living in sin), but more with the attitude that many bridal couples approach the Sacrament of Marriage. For many of them it’s more about the show of the wedding day and not the actual Sacrament. I’ve worked with many bridal couples myself and just talking with the priests I know, a number of them have no real idea what it’s about regarding a Catholic marriage. They don’t really attend Mass and find it a pain to have to do it at during the time that they’re engaged, as some parishes make it a requirement that they attend Mass. They don’t believe in a lot of what the Church teaches, but feel that they have to marry in the Church because their parents want them to. They feel that having sex before marriage is totally ok.

Many priests are truly jaded by how most couples today approach the Sacrament of Marriage. Cohabitation is just a part of it, but their problem with what’s going on today is the attitude. Our priest friend and a couple other priests I know are not afraid to just tell it like it is at a regular Sunday Mass, and even at our wedding.

 

[EasterJoy]

I dont know if You have noticed, but I have, the priests are subtly trying to get across to a lot of these pick & choose Catholics about the teachings of the Church, they have let it go too far, so its now hard to reign them in, they make comments about the Confession line being short, they make remarks like You should be reconciled before partaking of the Eucharist. I been seeing these things lately at mass & on the Ewtn mass. They know that a lot of sacriliges are being committed, they have to be subtle tho because if they arent , the Churches will empty out, people wanna hear what they wanna here only, if they dont like the priest treading so to speak on their lifestyle, they are out of there. I talk to many Catholics out side of church, & I am amazed at how they feel about their church. Yrs ago, Catholics made sacrifice for the Religion, today, if their comfort is compromized, they want nothing to do with it

It could be that they are not being subtle so much as walking the line between telling the truth about sin and being more accuser than confessor. I don’t know about your pastor, but mine has not been subtle about telling those in his care what the Church teaches. I can see that it pains him that they even need to hear something so basic, but he tells them the truth.

He tells the kids making their First Holy Communion that they have a responsibility to come to Mass every Sunday, and that they have his permission to roll their parents out of bed to do it, if necessary.

He tells people that their wants are to come after tending to their brothers and sisters needs. He tells them what the Church precept on confession is, then says that in his opinion, going to confession before Christmas and Easter are the absolute *minimum *they should shoot for. He talks about sin, he calls it sin, and the deacon does, too.

But yes, he says it compassionately. His ultimate point is not accusation, but the invitation to reconcile, which only starts with being clear about the* need* to reconcile, and how.

Priests, like the Lord, thirst for souls. They do not have the luxury of an “if you don’t like it, you can just leave” attitude. They also don’t have the luxury of, “if you don’t like it, you can just stick around and we’ll both pretend that you do,” because they really care whether someone not only stays in Church but truly accepts the life of Christ into their lives. They don’t give up everything so that the people they serve will live life in satisfaction with worse than nothing. Nobody gives up wife and family to preside over a polite weekly pretense of goodness, not when they have the key and duty to the Real Thing.

I’m sticking to my guns, though: Priests don’t cure “pick and choose” Catholics by being “pick and choose” themselves. They don’t cure disobedience in others by being disobedient themselves. They don’t draw people to seek mercy by having exhibiting no mercy themselves.

A very good priest will still consent to marry a couple that is cohabitating, even as much as their hardheartedness may hurt him, because marriage is their right and helping them realize it is his duty.

 

[NoWhereMan]

The reason why our priest friend said this had less to do with a couple cohabitating (I’m sure he’d be happier that they were no longer living in sin), but more with the attitude that many bridal couples approach the Sacrament of Marriage. For many of them it’s more about the show of the wedding day and not the actual Sacrament. I’ve worked with many bridal couples myself and just talking with the priests I know, a number of them have no real idea what it’s about regarding a Catholic marriage. They don’t really attend Mass and find it a pain to have to do it at during the time that they’re engaged, as some parishes make it a requirement that they attend Mass. They don’t believe in a lot of what the Church teaches, but feel that they have to marry in the Church because their parents want them to. They feel that having sex before marriage is totally ok.

Many priests are truly jaded by how most couples today approach the Sacrament of Marriage. Cohabitation is just a part of it, but their problem with what’s going on today is the attitude. Our priest friend and a couple other priests I know are not afraid to just tell it like it is at a regular Sunday Mass, and even at our wedding.

Good for HIm, Some of these people need the rude awakening, when they hear what they don`t want to hear most of time , they exit the Church, to find one that will tell them what they wanna hear

 

[NoWhereMan]

It could be that they are not being subtle so much as walking the line between telling the truth about sin and being more accuser than confessor. I don’t know about your pastor, but mine has not been subtle about telling those in his care what the Church teaches. I can see that it pains him that they even need to hear something so basic, but he tells them the truth.

He tells the kids making their First Holy Communion that they have a responsibility to come to Mass every Sunday, and that they have his permission to roll their parents out of bed to do it, if necessary.

He tells people that their wants are to come after tending to their brothers and sisters needs. He tells them what the Church precept on confession is, then says that in his opinion, going to confession before Christmas and Easter are the absolute *minimum *they should shoot for. He talks about sin, he calls it sin, and the deacon does, too.

But yes, he says it compassionately. His ultimate point is not accusation, but the invitation to reconcile, which only starts with being clear about the* need* to reconcile, and how.

Priests, like the Lord, thirst for souls. They do not have the luxury of an “if you don’t like it, you can just leave” attitude. They also don’t have the luxury of, “if you don’t like it, you can just stick around and we’ll both pretend that you do,” because they really care whether someone not only stays in Church but truly accepts the life of Christ into their lives. They don’t give up everything so that the people they serve will live life in satisfaction with worse than nothing. Nobody gives up wife and family to preside over a polite weekly pretense of goodness, not when they have the key and duty to the Real Thing.

I’m sticking to my guns, though: Priests don’t cure “pick and choose” Catholics by being “pick and choose” themselves. They don’t cure disobedience in others by being disobedient themselves. They don’t draw people to seek mercy by having exhibiting no mercy themselves.

A very good priest will still consent to marry a couple that is cohabitating, even as much as their hardheartedness may hurt him, because marriage is their right and helping them realize it is his duty.

I know full well many couples who have been cohabitating have been married in the Church, but this one was blatant, if she went to pre cana, & was told what was necessary , she should have complied. Hers is a different story, a couple who is cohabitating who wants to make it right in the Eyes of The Lord is one thing, that didnt seem to be her goal. I am probably wrong, but I think the Priest did the right thing by leaving> I have an idea that there was more than that , that the priest was upset with, just that that was the final straw

 

[NoWhereMan]

All priests are different, they all have different dispositions like all of us They are human, I once was at a mass where there were two teenage kids talking in about the 5th row of the pew, The priest on the altar got so mad he took the holy book & hurled it out at them. He was a Monsignor, & a great man, If You had a lot of Children & couldnt afford tuition for his school, You went anyhow, One woman who I knew was a lay teacher in his school & she told me if it wasnt for his temper he would be a saint, I knew him & I believe that. He also was the kind that if he suspected that Parents were not doing right by their Children He would visit their homes, & sometime would almost end up in a Fistfight, I remember the time he took of his winter overcoat to give it to a homeless man. So again I say they are all different just like ourselves, because they are ordained doesnt make them automatically celestrial. Most priests I ever met were great& even if they did fall, I thought of all the good that they did, not their fall

 

[EasterJoy]

I know full well many couples who have been cohabitating have been married in the Church, but this one was blatant, if she went to pre cana, & was told what was necessary , she should have complied. Hers is a different story, a couple who is cohabitating who wants to make it right in the Eyes of The Lord is one thing, that didnt seem to be her goal. I am probably wrong, but I think the Priest did the right thing by leaving> I have an idea that there was more than that , that the priest was upset with, just that that was the final straw

The bride (hypothetical to me*) did the wrong thing, but was within her rights.
The priest (also hypothetical to me*) did what he did for the right reasons, but was not within his.
I don’t know what is more frustrating than that, but there it is.

*One can never say, when one does not know the actual people, all the facts, and is in a position to judge. So I’ll stick to the hypothetical, entirely. On that account, I will concede that you could be right in the actual case. For instance, if he left on account of extra facts that would add in to constitute an impediment, the bride would have no ground to stand on.

In that case, though, discretion would usually require, where possible, that the priest make his decision before the wedding ceremony was allowed to commence and not make it into a public show, in order to make the situation less humiliating to the couple and less embarrassing for those who had to watch it. (Hypothetically…he might have told her quite clearly before the catering numbers were due what he would do if she didn’t switch her impeding attitude.)

 

[Sarabande]

I have a question… I have heard of and also have had a family member turned away from having their child baptised if they had no intention of going to Mass, etc. I assume that the priest has the right to do this since it seems to happen often. (although I could be wrong, since I’m only assuming this.) What is the difference with a couple who admits to having no intention of really living the Catholic faith, don’t believe in going to confession prior to the wedding day because they readily claim to the priest that they don’t believe fornication or living together and engaging in premarital sex is wrong, or is just getting married in the Catholic Church for almost the same reasons why some non-practicing Catholic parents want to have their baby baptised - their parents want them to get married in a Church, that since they were raised Catholic, they might as well do it this way as well even though they have no real intentions to do anything the Church teaches and asks of them?

If a priest knows this about a couple, how can he, in good faith, perform the Sacrament, knowing that the couple really doesn’t believe in any of it? I believe it would be much different than a couple who realizes that they are not doing something right in the eyes of the Church and of God and have gone to confession prior to the wedding day.

 

[Sarabande]

The reason why our priest friend said this had less to do with a couple cohabitating (I’m sure he’d be happier that they were no longer living in sin), but more with the attitude that many bridal couples approach the Sacrament of Marriage. For many of them it’s more about the show of the wedding day and not the actual Sacrament. I’ve worked with many bridal couples myself and just talking with the priests I know, a number of them have no real idea what it’s about regarding a Catholic marriage. They don’t really attend Mass and find it a pain to have to do it at during the time that they’re engaged, as some parishes make it a requirement that they attend Mass. They don’t believe in a lot of what the Church teaches, but feel that they have to marry in the Church because their parents want them to. They feel that having sex before marriage is totally ok.

Many priests are truly jaded by how most couples today approach the Sacrament of Marriage. Cohabitation is just a part of it, but their problem with what’s going on today is the attitude. Our priest friend and a couple other priests I know are not afraid to just tell it like it is at a regular Sunday Mass, and even at our wedding.

When I wrote the above I was just about to leave for a rehearsal. I just wanted to add that this priest, from what I know, hasn’t turned away couples although, he does tell it like it is to them. He is also a very well-loved priest, never judgemental, down-to-earth and truly cares about the people and his parish. People like him because of his matter-of-factness.

 

[NHInsider]

I have a question… I have heard of and also have had a family member turned away from having their child baptised if they had no intention of going to Mass, etc. I assume that the priest has the right to do this since it seems to happen often. (although I could be wrong, since I’m only assuming this.) What is the difference with a couple who admits to having no intention of really living the Catholic faith, don’t believe in going to confession prior to the wedding day because they readily claim to the priest that they don’t believe fornication or living together and engaging in premarital sex is wrong, or is just getting married in the Catholic Church for almost the same reasons why some non-practicing Catholic parents want to have their baby baptised - their parents want them to get married in a Church, that since they were raised Catholic, they might as well do it this way as well even though they have no real intentions to do anything the Church teaches and asks of them?

If a priest knows this about a couple, how can he, in good faith, perform the Sacrament, knowing that the couple really doesn’t believe in any of it? I believe it would be much different than a couple who realizes that they are not doing something right in the eyes of the Church and of God and have gone to confession prior to the wedding day.

The issue with Baptism is that the parents and godparents are making a commitment on behalf of the child which places the child under obligation. If there is good reason to fear that the child will not be brought up in the faith, the priest faces a serious dilemma - baptise the child to initiate him into the faith, giving that grace and potential, but also the obligations it entails, or refuse baptism so that the child remains in original sin but free of the potential for mortal sin? I think most priests who refuse also hope that the refusal will serve to prod the parents to reconsider their laxity.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I have a question… I have heard of and also have had a family member turned away from having their child baptised if they had no intention of going to Mass, etc. I assume that the priest has the right to do this since it seems to happen often. (although I could be wrong, since I’m only assuming this.)

Well, this is a little tricky. Canon 868 2ƒ requires “a well‚founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion.” However, notice that it does not say the well founded hope is that they be practicing Catholics, but only that the child be brought up in the catholic religion.
Secondly, the canon goes on to state “if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.” So even if there is no well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic religion it should not be denied outright but rather delayed and discussed with the parents. And even that must follow the particular law set forth by the diocesan bishop.

So in a hypothetical situation of two parents who simply do not attend Mass and have no intention of doing so, if they are willing to send their child to ccd or catholic school, then it seems they would be meeting the requirements of the canon.
The priest is possibly on some shaky ground with the hypothetical situation presented.

If a priest knows this about a couple, how can he, in good faith, perform the Sacrament, knowing that the couple really doesn’t believe in any of it? I believe it would be much different than a couple who realizes that they are not doing something right in the eyes of the Church and of God and have gone to confession prior to the wedding day.

There’s a huge difference between not believing premarital sex/cohabitation is wrong and not believing marriage is a sacrament that creates a permanent bond.

 

[Sarabande]

Well, this is a little tricky. Canon 868 2ƒ requires “a well‚founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion.” However, notice that it does not say the well founded hope is that they be practicing Catholics, but only that the child be brought up in the catholic religion.
Secondly, the canon goes on to state “if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.” So even if there is no well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic religion it should not be denied outright but rather delayed and discussed with the parents. And even that must follow the particular law set forth by the diocesan bishop.

That would make sense to delay baptism. In the case of my aunt and uncle, they just never bothered getting my cousin baptised after being told they couldn’t do it, mainly because my uncle didn’t believe in having to raise his son Catholic. My grandmother was so heartbroken over this and spoke to her priest about it. That priest told her that it would not have made sense to do it if his parents weren’t going to promise to raise him Catholic and would be better if my cousin would decide to do it on his own. Our neighbor also had a similar situation. The father didn’t want to raise the children Catholic, so they couldn’t get the children baptised. Fortunately, the grandmother was around a lot and influenced one of the daughters. She was just baptised into the the Church this past Easter as a teenager of her own choice.

There’s a huge difference between not believing premarital sex/cohabitation is wrong and not believing marriage is a sacrament that creates a permanent bond.

I would agree with that, but there are couples (from my experience of working with them and just reading Catholic brides talk on the secular bridal forums) that they actually don’t believe premarital sex is wrong and also don’t believe in the actual Sacrament or care about what it’s all about. They just do it because they were raised Catholic, but have no real understanding of what a sacrament entails. I think that is what a lot of priests have to deal with and make a decision.