Cohabitation

[nodito]

This is something I don’t understand. The Eucharist obviously cannot be received in a state of mortal sin. If marriage is different in this regard then why is it?

The Eucharist can be received in a state of mortal sin. I would argue that it happens all the time.

 

[Coder]

The Eucharist can be received in a state of mortal sin. I would argue that it happens all the time.

Hi, by can I meant in the sense of being in right relationship with Jesus. The Church teaching is clear that Jesus does not desire that people in mortal sin receive His Body. However, if the Church teaches that Jesus does bless a couple with marriage even when one or both is in mortal sin then I seek to understand how marriage is different in this regard.

 

[nodito]

Hi, by can I meant in the sense of being in right relationship with Jesus. The Church teaching is clear that Jesus does not desire that people in mortal sin receive His Body. However, if the Church teaches that Jesus does bless a couple with marriage even when one or both is in mortal sin then I seek to understand how marriage is different in this regard.

Hi Coder,

My understanding is that if a couple gets marriage in a state of mortal sin they do not receive the graces of sacrament until they confess and receive absolution from a priest. Though they are truly married, they have committed the serious sin of sacrilige. This is similar to what happens when a person receives Communion in a state of mortal sin. Though they receive the Body and Blood of Christ, they do not receive the graces of the sacrament because they have committed another serious sin.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I know a priest who was preparing a couple for marriage, but they were living together. The priest made it very clear that they needed to go to confession prior to the wedding. The woman made it equally clear that she did not feel the need to go to confession because she did not think it was a sin. When the priest showed up to the church he asked the woman if she went to confession. She said no, and the priest walked out and went home.

That priest did the wrong thing. Cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It needs to be kept in mind that not all cohabitating situations are the same. I know of one case where the couple did not cohabitate until they had been engaged for a few months and even then it was only because the bride had lost her job and couldn’t afford her rent. She didn’t have any relatives in the area and cohabitation was essentially their only reasonable option.

Secondly, if the couple already has children then it would be highly inadvisable for them to separate.

Third, I think we need to be aware that people can and do lie. If a couple knows that the parish priest is hard on cohabitating couples then the might just lie and say they aren’t living together or that they separated. In my opinion, priests should avoid putting themselves in situations where we are rewarding liars and punishing truth tellers.

The US Bishops produced a good document on this issue:
usccb.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by xpistou View Post
I know a priest who was preparing a couple for marriage, but they were living together. The priest made it very clear that they needed to go to confession prior to the wedding. The woman made it equally clear that she did not feel the need to go to confession because she did not think it was a sin. When the priest showed up to the church he asked the woman if she went to confession. She said no, and the priest walked out and went home.

That priest did the wrong thing. Cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation.

---

It does not seem the couple was refused marriage on the grounds of cohabitation itself --but on the grounds that the woman did not believe her cohabitation was a sin–therefore there was no need for her to go to confession.

 

[Coder]

Hi Coder,

My understanding is that if a couple gets marriage in a state of mortal sin they do not receive the graces of sacrament until they confess and receive absolution from a priest.

Hi nodito, yes a previous post indicated that also. However, the question still remains. If the couple reconciles with the Church they will then receive the graces of the sacrament of marriage already received? We are not taught this about the reception of communion but rather that it is itself a grave sin to receive communion in such a state.

 

[Coder]

Cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation.

In order for a Catholic marriage to be valid the couple must understand what they are doing when they say “I do” - true? I propose that a cohabitating person who sees nothing wrong with it is not prepared for Catholic marriage. I think that laxness about this may be a factor in the number of couples who marry and later separate.

 

[nodito]

If the couple reconciles with the Church they will then receive the graces of the sacrament of marriage already received? We are not taught this about the reception of communion but rather that it is itself a grave sin to receive communion in such a state.

This seems logical to me because marriage is an on-going sacrament. Couples are married only once but continually receive the grace they need to live out their vocation. Whereas with the sacrament of Communion, we can receive it many times, or even daily. And every time we receive new graces. Thus, if a person received communion in a state of mortal sin, they could not receive the graces of the sacrament that time, but could receive the graces of the sacrament later, after they confess. Likewise, a married person would also start receiving graces from the sacrament of marriage after they are brought into communion of the Church and are open to the graces that their sacrament continues to pour out on them.

 

[Coder]

Thus, if a person received communion in a state of mortal sin, they could not receive the graces of the sacrament that time, but could receive the graces of the sacrament later, after they confess.

It is a sin to receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin. I have heard no teaching that if a person confesses e.g. a year later then they will receive grace from the Eaucharist that they received in a state of mortal sin. In fact we are taught the opposite. Scripture refers to sickness and death of those who receive communion apart from a state of grace.
1 Corinthians 11:29-30
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm#v17

Therefore again I would like to discuss marriage in this regard.

 

[Coder]

I have argued that fornication is not implicit in cohabitation. As such, cohabitation is not a sin. You rebutted that cohabitation leads to an occasion to sin, but again, this is not a universal argument against cohabitation.

It is near occasion of sin and a scandal. This has been addressed already - see previous posts.

 

[EasterJoy]

---

It does not seem the couple was refused marriage on the grounds of cohabitation itself --but on the grounds that the woman did not believe her cohabitation was a sin–therefore there was no need for her to go to confession.

All adults, even bad Catholics, have the right to marry, if there are no impediments preventing the marriage…that is, issues that would prevent an actual marriage from taking place at all.

All Catholics, even bad Catholics–and by this I’m not reading their hearts, but only externals of observance such as could be used to measure this–are morally bound to marry in the Church, and in accordance with canon law. Therefore, the Church cannot deny the Sacrament of Marriage to Catholics on the grounds that their observance is not up to snuff, provided that the Catholics are observing laws that pertain particularly to marriage. All of these laws are laws that ensure that the marriage will be valid, since it cannot be ensured that parties to a marriage will be free of serious sin.

Therefore, all Catholics have the right to marry in the Church, so long as they are entering into a marriage that cannot be fairly presumed to be invalid from the outset. Even in that case, they apparently have the right to challenge that presumption before a marriage tribunal.

This is not to say that they do not commit sacrilege by asserting this right when they are not in a state of grace. It is to say that approaching the sacrament is a right they may assert, and judging whether they do so sacrilegiously is a decision for them to make. The priest or deacon asked to witness their marriage may not discern that for them. If they are to be rescued from that sacrilege, they must be persuaded to refrain, by their own free will, from exercising their right to marry until they may do so from a state of grace. The duty of the clergy who witness marriages, then, is to confirm that the marriage will be valid, not that it will be free of serious sin that is not also an impediment to a valid marriage.

For instance, if one of the parties to the marriage have admitted that they have never been and have no intention to remain continent with regards to sex outside the union, or if the couple freely admits that they have no intention to welcome children, that is a different story. A total lack of intention to maintain fidelity or to be open to children would be impediments to a valid marriage, and could be a legitimate reason to deny access to the sacrament.

Otherwise, though, you are as free to marry someone who only commits fornication with you as you are to marry someone with whom you rob banks, provided the sexual sin or your history of robbing banks together do not serve as coercive factors in your consent. It doesn’t affect the validity of your marriage.

Ironically, though, if you were to tell a priest that you feel you are compelled to marry, and would not give consent except for the fact that you have committed fornication together or that you have a history of robbing banks together that you do not want disclosed, you might be denied the sacrament on that account, until it was confirmed that your consent was freely given. Mutual consent, free of coersion, is a requirement for a valid marriage.

 

[Coder]

Therefore, all Catholics have the right to marry in the Church, so long as they are entering into a marriage that cannot be fairly presumed to be invalid from the outset.

Yes, and if you see my pervious posts, I don’t think that a Catholic who cohabitates and sees nothing wrong with it is prepared for Catholic marriage and therefore I question whether the marriage would be valid. To enter consentually into Catholic marriage one must understand its meaning - true? If someone is cohabitating do they really understand and embrace the meaning of Catholic marriage?

 

[Coder]

You’re now making a claim that cohabitation creates complication, and therefore this is a sin.

You asked:

In that situation, is cohabitation a sin?

I answered:

Yes, complication, chaos, and sin seem to be cousins.

The answer I gave was “yes” that it was a “sin”. Then I added the relationship of complication to sin. This does not say that the complication itself is the sin. However I do think that in general in the spiritual life, disorder is a result of sin and can be a factor in people further falling into sin (e.g. scandal).

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It does not seem the couple was refused marriage on the grounds of cohabitation itself --but on the grounds that the woman did not believe her cohabitation was a sin–therefore there was no need for her to go to confession.

I’m not sure that explanation works. There’s many things the Church says are sinful that individuals do not “personally believe” to be sinful. Its a rather slippery slope, and canoncially speaking, I don’t see what leg that priest has to stand on. People have a natural right to marriage. Unless there’s a clear canonical impediment its sin to deny them marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, and if you see my pervious posts, I don’t think that a Catholic who cohabitates and sees nothing wrong with it is prepared for Catholic marriage and therefore I question whether the marriage would be valid. To enter consentually into Catholic marriage one must understand its meaning - true? If someone is cohabitating do they really understand what the meaning of marriage is?

You could make that argument, but it is unlikely that a tribunal would deny a challenge by the couple, as long as their incontinence did not include other parties.

Again, a marriage of serious sinners is still valid, as long as they freely give consent to the conditions of marriage. Marriage is a right. The Church may not deny marriage to those it does not think will enter into good marriages. She may only deny the sacrament to those she has judged will not enter into valid marriages.

Unless the conditions of the cohabitation obviously constitute grounds for a decree of nullity, the sacrament cannot be denied to the cohabitating parties. If there is uncertainty, the Church is bound to yield the benefit of the doubt: ties goes to the runner. If you as a priest, though, had serious reason to believe the couple did not meet the requirements of a valid marriage, you could send them to a tribunal to make their case. I suppose that if they were forced to do that and succeeded, they would have a tough time arguing otherwise later! That is not currently how the Church operates, though, not most of the time.

Marriage is a right, and the Church cannot ethically invent obstacles to exercising that right.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In order for a Catholic marriage to be valid the couple must understand what they are doing when they say “I do” - true? I propose that a cohabitating person who sees nothing wrong with it is not prepared for Catholic marriage. I think that laxness about this may be a factor in the number of couples who marry and later separate.

It could be a reason to delay marriage, but it can’t be denied outright. As previously stated, marriage is a natural and canonical right it cannot be denied on the whims of a priest. The burden of proof would be on the priest to show that the couple is not capable of consenting to the sacrament and cohabitation, in and of itself, is not proof.
If the couple was smart they’d immediately appeal to the diocese’s canon law office and the priest would be forced to marry them.

 

[Coder]

To NewEnglandPries and EasterJoy then let us please address the question of valid marriage. Does not one have to understand the meaning of Catholic marriage in order to validly consent to it? Can a cohabitating couple claim to understand the meaning of Catholic marriage (including its relation to the Christian community regarding scandal)?

I propose that tolerance/laxity regarding cohabitation may oppose the mission of Jesus.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

To NewEnglandPries and EasterJoy let us please address the question of valid marriage then. Does not one have to understand the meaning of Catholic marriage in order to validly consent to it? Can a cohabitating couple claim to understand the meaning of Catholic marriage (including its relation to the Christian community regarding scandal)?

Yes. Cohabitating couples enter into valid marriages. The Church has already decided that issue since you cannot have a marriage annuled based on cohabitation.

You see the problem I see is that this acceptance of cohabitation is ultimately damaging to the mission of Jesus and the glory of the faith.

No one here is saying cohabitation is a good thing.

The direction we are called to by Jesus is no nonsense holiness.

Yes, but everyone is also a sinner so we need to be careful about where we’re drawing lines in the sand and why.

I think there should be an outrage about the scandal of cohabitation!

Yes, but railing against something has rarely changed anything. People need to be educated and helped to see why what they are doing is wrong and that doesn’t happen overnight.

The overriding aspect here is that the Church recognizes that cohabitating couples can inded enter into valid marriage and no matter what you may personally think the Church has already put forth a decision on this issue. For a priest to deny a cohabitating couple marriage without proof of their inability to give consent would be a sin and a violation of their natural and canonical rights.
How would you feel if a priest denied your right to be married simply because he “felt” you couldn’t give consent?

 

[Coder]

People need to be educated and helped to see why what they are doing is wrong…

Yes - agreed So I propose that couples who cohabitate and are seeking marriage be required to take weekly classes on why cohabitation is not aligned with the role of marriage in cooperation with Jesus.