Cohabitation

[Coder]

How would you feel if a priest denied your right to be married simply because he “felt” you couldn’t give consent?

In general I understand however I propose that we just tell people up front that if they plan to get married they cannot be cohabitating. If it’s not part of canon law then maybe it should be. In general, I don’t see that cohabitating couples can experience the joy and peace of Jesus.

Also I ask that if marriage can be received in a state of mortal sin and its graces later received upon repenting then how is marriage different as a sacrament from the Eucharist in this regard?

 

[nodito]

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.

I may be out of my league here, debating how grace is allocated. If I understand correctly, your concern is that couples who marry in a state of mortal sin (which we agree is also a sin) should not receive the grace of the sacrament retroactively, because we don’t receive retroactive grace for confessing unworthy reception of the Eucharist. I would say that the difference is that unlike the Eucharist which we can receive often in order to frequently receive grace, marriage is an ongoing sacrament in which we’re constantly given the grace of God to live our vocation. So a person who enters marriage is a state of mortal sin validly contracts marriage but won’t start receiving the grace until he or she is in communion with the Church. It’s as if by conferring sacramental marriage the couple turned on a water fountain of God’s grace, but they are unable to access it until they are in communion with the Church.

 

[NoWhereMan]

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.

Hurray for that Priest!!!

 

[NoWhereMan]

Cohabitation~to live together without being formally married

 

[Coder]

It’s as if by conferring sacramental marriage the couple turned on a water fountain of God’s grace, but they are unable to access it until they are in communion with the Church.

I am grateful for your effort in addressing this question. Continuing on, could not one say that the Eucharist is a fountain of grace even though we receive Him in this sacrament more than once? In both of these sacraments we are approaching to Jesus. In the case of the Eucharist we are receiving from Jesus the gift of Himself. In marriage the couple receives from Jesus His blessing of their union and His life in their union. Isn’t the mariage consumated when the couple has relations? Is the marriage later consumated the first time the couple has relations after they repent?

Marriage is also a contract that is consented to. One might propose that there is no need to consent again after repentance but again I would ask what the original consent meant if they did not understand marriage at the time?

 

[EasterJoy]

In general I understand however I propose that we just tell people up front that if they plan to get married they cannot be cohabitating. If it’s not part of canon law then maybe it should be. In general, I don’t see that cohabitating couples can experience the joy and peace of Jesus.

Also I ask that if marriage can be received in a state of mortal sin and its graces later received upon repenting then how is marriage different as a sacrament from the Eucharist in this regard?

Again: The Church recognizes that marriage is a right. Catholics have a right to marry, Catholics have a duty to marry in the Church, and therefore the Church has a duty to allow Catholics to exercise their right to marry within the Church.

The Church therefore recognizes that she has *no right *to withhold the sacrament of marriage from Catholics wishing to marry other Catholics, except when the ritual performed would still not result in a valid marriage. She may limit Catholics to marrying other Catholics. (Because of her duty to children of the marriage, the Church has the right and duty to withhold dispensation to marry outside the Church when children of such a marriage are likely to be denied their right to baptism and the life of the Church.)

In other words, the Church cannot ethically require that all marriages be good marriages. She can require that those who freely enter the Church must marry as Catholics. She cannot require that only good Catholics may marry. She can only do what duty requires: refuse to give the appearance of legitimacy to that which prudence says probably lacks legitimacy.

In contrast, for instance, Holy Orders is not a right, but a privelege. The Church is duty bound to reserve the sacrament of Holy Orders only for those she deems are highly likely to be not only valid priests–as she does in requiring candidates to be male–but also that they are both willing and likely to be excellent priests. She has not only the right, but the duty, to make the candidates wait as long as necessary to be as certain of this as is humanly possible. She may impose whatever disciplines she deems necessary to provide the faithful with the best priests. She may even require that candidates freely forego their right to marry in order to be ordained.

If the Church errs in dispensing the Sacrament of Holy Orders, she is duty-bound to err on the side of caution. This is in defense of the right of the faithful to have worthy priests or else none at all. If the Church errs in dispensing or withholding the Sacrament of Marriage, however, she must err in favor of the human right to marry.

Therefore, I would argue that canon law is just as it “should” be.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In general I understand however I propose that we just tell people up front that if they plan to get married they cannot be cohabitating. If it’s not part of canon law then maybe it should be.

This issue has deep roots in the fact that the Church views marriage as a natural right, its one that the Church must be very cautious about restricting. The burden of proof is on the Church to prove the couple is incapable of making valid vows.
Pre marital sex is a sin, but it doesn’t mean the couple is incapable of exchaning vows of unity and procreation 'till death do them part.

Also I ask that if marriage can be received in a state of mortal sin and its graces later received upon repenting then how is marriage different as a sacrament from the Eucharist in this regard?

Think of it more like Confirmation. Just because someone is in a state of mortal sin when they receive the sacrament of confirmation does not mean they do not receive the sacrament.

 

[Coder]

Think of it more like Confirmation. Just because someone is in a state of mortal sin when they receive the sacrament of confirmation does not mean they do not receive the sacrament.

I had wondered about that, that is interesting. If that is true then is one strengthened by the Holy Spirit at the time of confirmation? Does one receive the graces of confirmation later if they repent? I still would like to understand how these sacraments are different from the Eucharist in this regard. My thought would be that the only scaraments that one could receive with (mortal) sin are Baptism, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick ( when unable to confess).

 

[NoWhereMan]

If she couldn`t even go to confession for her marriage day, why did she even bother to get maried Catholic. I think the Priest was right to not marry her cause she was blatant, a pick & choose catholic, why did she bother, she should have just went & had a civil ceremony

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If she couldn`t even go to confession for her marriage day, why did she even bother to get maried Catholic. I think the Priest was right to not marry her cause she was blatant, a pick & choose catholic, why did she bother, she should have just went & had a civil ceremony

Because the priest violated her natural and canonical rights, that’s why. If you don’t like it when liberals break rules and laws to enforce their own viewpoint then neither should “conservatives” be allowed to break rules and laws at their own whim. The woman in question had every right to be married in the Church. If she was smart she would have called the bishop’s office and the priest would have been called in for a primer on canon law and a lecture.

 

[NoWhereMan]

Because the priest violated her natural and canonical rights, that’s why. If you don’t like it when liberals break rules and laws to enforce their own viewpoint then neither should “conservatives” be allowed to break rules and laws at their own whim. The woman in question had every right to be married in the Church. If she was smart she would have called the bishop’s office and the priest would have been called in for a primer on canon law and a lecture.

Dealing with some of the pick & choose catholics, its no wonder that some Priests just throw their hands up, these Catholics want it their way, Thats Not the way its supposed to be.If she didnt know that Cohabitation is a sin, she sure is a poor Catholic. These Priests have to take a stand against some of these blatant have it their way Catholics. The Priest went over it with them what they had to do. If she dont want to even try to follow the laws of The Church, then why bother. I think The Priest was right, the Church is going to hell in a handbasket, yrs ago Catholics made big sacrifice for their religion, nowadays, if anything disturbs their comfort in any way, they want nothing to do with it

 

[cameron_lansing]

As observed, while cohabitation is not an impediment to validity and does not prohibit marriage by itself, it may signify the lack of proper disposition for marriage and the right to the sacraments is conditioned by disposition as well as the qualifications of law (see c. 843 §1). So while there is an underlying natural right to marry that cannot be arbitrarily restricted, that right is not without qualifications. One does not want to err by laxity or rigidity when applying the law where it will have an effect on the matter of the salvation of souls.

Certainly, one does not drop the bomb on a couple at the last moment as the priest in the scenario appears to have done. As the USCCB advises, this is to be confronted honestly, discussed and dealt with.

Unrepentent cohabitation presents a serious situation as it can, and often does, reflect a rejection of Catholic belief about the sanctity of marriage and human sexuality. At least in the case of marriage, consummation is presumed by the law itself after a couple begins cohabitation (c. 1016 §2). A similar presumption, although a human presumption, could be made in the case of unwed cohabitants. Presumptions are subject to being overturned by contrary proof, but they are a starting point. Again, discussion is needed.

A local ordinary is within his competence to prohibit the celebration of marriage for a grave cause, and for as long as that reason exists (c. 1077 §1). So things can be delayed until remedied in such a situation. The province of Detroit makes provision for this kind of situation, and I imagine other provinces or dioceses do as well.

A priest would be advised to consult the ordinary or those norms which the ordinary has established. This would avoid the making of an arbitrary decision, or the appearance of one, and provide a more solid basis for an objective discernment of the situation…

 

[NoWhereMan]

Because the priest violated her natural and canonical rights, that’s why. If you don’t like it when liberals break rules and laws to enforce their own viewpoint then neither should “conservatives” be allowed to break rules and laws at their own whim. The woman in question had every right to be married in the Church. If she was smart she would have called the bishop’s office and the priest would have been called in for a primer on canon law and a lecture.

The Bishop would probably agree with the Priest

 

[IAGladfelter]

Is cohabitation a mortal sin? If so, then why are cohabitating couples given the Sacrament of Marriage? One could not receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation with an unrepented mortal sin.

Question #1: Yes, unfortunately.

Question #2: Because on at least a functional level, those so doing are on a practical level, “functional” agnostics, “functional” atheists, and simply do not care. On so many levels, it seems like America is about 50 years behind Europe in its abandonment of Christianity. Europe’s present (religiously) is America’s future if we don’t do something about it now! We are living in what has become a “mission field.” At least that is my very humble opinion.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[PeterMuz]

I don’t understand the sin of having the same front door. Two people living in the same house, with separate rooms and separate beds (and not having relations, obviously) doesn’t seem to me to be a sin (i.e. living as roommates for financial reasons). My understanding is that in years gone by, it would be considered scandal, but these days, it’s common among engaged couples and people aren’t as aware of each other’s living arrangements (I couldn’t tell you who most people in my parish live with).

This is the sin of scandal which is very often is a mortal sin. Just because it’s common for engaged couples to live together that does not make it okay. The sin of scandal can be hard to understand is a very deep discussion. I suggest reading up on it. In Revelations 3 we are told it is better to be hot or cold than luck warm. That is because being luke warm may lead other into sin. Endorsing couples living together validates an improper relationship and will lead many into sin.

The more applicable argument against it is the fact that people who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who do not. But, I would also argue the cause / effect relationship between these two. The standard argument is that living together causes divorce (with the higher divorce rate among cohabitators as evidence). However, I would argue that lack of religion in a relationship causes both people to live together more frequently and people to divorce more frequently. So the cause of divorce isn’t cohabitation, but rather lack of religion in a relationship and cohabitation is a symptom. Thus if people are highly religious, cohabitation won’t lead to higher divorce rates. I haven’t seen a scientific study that uses both factors in what would have to be a latent variable model.

This is a non sequitur. You cannot say that two highly religious people living together will not lead to higher divorce rates. Evidence shows that couples living together before marriage have a higher chance of divorce and that couples that pray together have a higher chance for not getting divorced. But you cannot put the two arguments together say come to the conclusion that you did. I would argue that the number of highly religious couples living together before marriage is almost zero. I would question the highly religious claim if the are living together.

 

[_Jenn]

Here’s the thing…

With and through God, all things are possible. I don’t think anyone here will argue that.

Simply living together is not a sin. And believe it or not, it IS possible to live together, sleeping in the same bed, without having sex. It’s all about the 2 people involved. My dh & I managed it, quite easily, for 4 months. Why? Because waiting until our wedding night for that was something we BOTH wanted, something we both respected each other for, etc. Are we the “exception to the rule”? Sure - I’ll grant you that.

We bought the house about 8 months prior to the wedding, spent 4 months (give or take a bit) fixing it up (memories of the hideous wallpaper still haunt me 9 years later LOL), and then moved in. Sure - we could’ve had just one of us move in; but let’s see…

a) we were both paying for it
b) it put us both in a closer commute to our jobs; we were both working 2 jobs at the time - the house we bought put us both no more than 10 min. from either job as opposed to the 45 min. (sometimes longer) commute we each had prior to that. Our families were relieved when we finally moved in, as they weren’t worried about us driving 45 min. late at night after working 2 jobs and being exhausted.

I’m in no way an advocate at all for living together as just a dating couple. Too much potential for nastiness with splitting of bills, etc. should there be a break up. But for a couple already engaged, who knows their boundaries and their convictions (and each other’s), etc. then I don’t view it as anything big. If people are doing it, just so they have a place where they “won’t get caught”, then that’s wrong as well, IMO.

But to paint the whole cohabitation subject with one broad brush is too much. Nobody knows what is in any person’s heart, nor where they are in their walk with our Lord.

And yes, I’m Catholic (always have been), and no, my dh is not. 8 wonderful years of marriage later, I wouldn’t change a thing. And the whole divorce statistic doesn’t bother me - I tend to ignore statistics. If I didn’t, I’d never get in a car, on a plane, or do a whole horde of other things that there are dismal statistics for.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But to paint the whole cohabitation subject with one broad brush is too much. Nobody knows what is in any person’s heart, nor where they are in their walk with our Lord.

Amen.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Bishop would probably agree with the Priest

LOL, I doubt it. There’s a few that might, but not many, especially given the circumstances.

 

[Sarabande]

I’m of the age where many of our friends and cousins are getting married or are recently married (within the last 5 years or so). I have to say for almost all of those who cohabitated prior to marriage, they were very open about being sexually active during the entire time as well. Now, I believe some of them who were Catholic did go to confession prior to the wedding day to confess their sins. But there were ones who actually did not believe they were doing anything wrong by living together and having sexual relations.

Just go on any secular bridal site, too, and you’ll see that most of the couples are living together and having relations. And there are plenty of threads started by brides getting married in the Catholic Church worried about what their priest is going to say about them living together. Some even complain about their priests wanting them to live apart and not have sex, many talk about how the priests don’t really say much anymore about it, or just say something like the Church prefers them to not live together and not have sexual relations, but they don’t touch on the subject again. In those kinds of threads, you feel like the rare bird when you mention that your fiance and you did not live together nor engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage. Although, at the same time, you don’t really get blasted for it. And there are always those brave souls who tell it like it is to these brides, which some do not like at all. One girl gave a great example of if a person wanted to join a special kind of club, they’d have to be willing to follow the rules and practices of the club if they wanted to be a part of it. You aren’t allowed to pick and choose, otherwise you’re kicked out. Same thing with any denomination you are part of. You can’t just pick and choose. And at least with your faith, you can continually be forgiven and accepted back if you are truly sorry for breaking the rules, whereas in a club you might have a few strikes and be kicked out forever.

That said, I can’t say that all couples who co-habitate do engage in sex, but just in my own generation, I know that it is more common than not.

 

[PJM]

=Coder;5376443]Is cohabitation a mortal sin? If so, then why are cohabitating couples given the Sacrament of Marriage? One could not receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation with an unrepented mortal sin.

So friend your saying you KNOW that they KNOW that what they are doing is a MORTAL SIN?

And your saying YOU KNOW that They HAVE NOT REPENTED and gone to Confession?

Better you than me friend:blush: