"Committed Sex" is okay?

[rwoehmke]

For those who are not of a religion that requires marriage before witnesses or who wished to disregard their religious back ground, it used to be called a common law marriage. These were once accepted in many states, but I think the problems with the legal aspects if they came apart caused most if not all states to no longer recognize them. Usually they just required co-habiting for some set period of time to make them legal and most of the legalities of marriage kicked in. I suspect those who had no religion but had a committment would not be sinning. It is my memory that people who had religion usually looked down on those folks who went common law. Never the less either this priest is full of bull by-product or he is accepting a source of similar value.

 

[Chancellare]

I suspect those who had no religion but had a committment would not be sinning.

I’d rather not go into this reasoning. So one can also renounce religion in order to be free of sin?

 

[Mary_ann_R]

To answer the question of whether or not this is morally acceptable I will have to quote my mother “Not no, but HELL NO”

:clapping:

 

[Mary_ann_R]

Ok calm down people, he get’s the point now, falling out of chairs, hell no’s and references to satan is rather stupid. It can be deduced from these silly comments the average age is around 14 in here.

Lighten up! You’ll get old before your time. Besides, you have to give us youngsters time to catch up.

 

[mikeledes]

he is mistaken (charitable assumption), or misinformed (hard to believe given his training) or downright lying either for what he calls “pastoral reasons” a code word for the opposite of “if it feels good do it”, in other words “if it don’t make you feel bad, do it”.

This issue came up because in our RCIA program, we often have people who are in “irregular” situations. They are either divorced and remarried, married only civilly, or just plain “shacking up:” am I allowed to say that? He wants these issues to be addressed in a way that does not cause these people to leave the Church for good. In other words, I think he’s afraid of hurting people’s feelings.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sr_Sally]

This issue came up because in our RCIA program, we often have people who are in “irregular” situations. They are either divorced and remarried, married only civilly, or just plain “shacking up:” am I allowed to say that? He wants these issues to be addressed in a way that does not cause these people to leave the Church for good. In other words, I think he’s afraid of hurting people’s feelings.

God Bless,
Michael

It seems to me that each couples situation should be discussed with the priest in private. RCIA is a place for explaining the truth of the faith–not for discussing everyone’s martial status and sex habits.

Yes, he should be teaching that the church does not allow ‘extra-marital’ sex of any kind, but how that applies in each specific situation should be part of a private discussion and hopefully handled either before the couple starts RCIA or very soon after.

 

[Mary_ann_R]

This issue came up because in our RCIA program, we often have people who are in “irregular” situations. They are either divorced and remarried, married only civilly, or just plain “shacking up:” am I allowed to say that? He wants these issues to be addressed in a way that does not cause these people to leave the Church for good. In other words, I think he’s afraid of hurting people’s feelings.

God Bless,
Michael

Michael,
I agree with Sr Sally, but in the meantime, there is a book titled Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West. Perhaps you could mention this book to him. He may be able to suggest it to them.

 

[mikeledes]

It seems to me that each couples situation should be discussed with the priest in private. RCIA is a place for explaining the truth of the faith–not for discussing everyone’s martial status and sex habits.

Yes, he should be teaching that the church does not allow ‘extra-marital’ sex of any kind, but how that applies in each specific situation should be part of a private discussion and hopefully handled either before the couple starts RCIA or very soon after.

What would you suggest to an RCIA instructor if a person is in an “irregular” situation and asks whether they are living in sin? Particularly if one has taught that the “irregular” situation is sinful?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Melissa]

What would you suggest to an RCIA instructor if a person is in an “irregular” situation and asks whether they are living in sin? Particularly if one has taught that the “irregular” situation is sinful?

Tell the truth. And how they might rectify the situation. But privately, not in a group setting where everyone else then gets to know the personal business of another.

If a blind man is walking toward a cliff edge w/ no barriers, is it kind or just to not let him know and fail to lead him to a safe path? So, honestly, how charitable is it to see someone walking on the road to hell and NOT warn that person of the danger?

 

[mercygate]

What would you suggest to an RCIA instructor if a person is in an “irregular” situation and asks whether they are living in sin? Particularly if one has taught that the “irregular” situation is sinful?

God Bless,
Michael

If the Priest is not participating in the RCIA sessions (or even if he is), I believe he should speak to the couple in private, preferably before the situation comes up in a group sesson. I think he should speak with the couple, if possible, even if only one person is attending the sesions.

If you are leading the session, and someone asks the question, I think you should make a general statement that in the Catholic Church marriage is a sacrament, and when people come into the Church, it is not unusual for them to need to get their relationships in order before they can be received. Then say that if anybody in the group has a question, they must (must) speak with the Pastor about it and he will help them to work things out.

If I were a pastor handling these difficult situations, I would consult wise heads about the best way to handle the situation pastorally without diluting the truth. NOT EASY.

But the WORST thing that can happen would be to give people the idea that everything is OK when it is not, and telling people that sex in “committed relationships” is not sinful is downright scandalous.

 

[Sr_Sally]

What would you suggest to an RCIA instructor if a person is in an “irregular” situation and asks whether they are living in sin? Particularly if one has taught that the “irregular” situation is sinful?

God Bless,
Michael

If the person/couple asks in a class the instructor simply says, “Let’s take a few minutes to discuss that after class.” Then he takes them aside and schedules a meeting with the priest to discuss in more detail.

That’s more time/class management than anything else. Lots of questions can get a class derailed onto a bunny trail, not just ones about sex.

Of course, if the person/couple asks after class or before even starting RCIA, they should again be set up with a private appt with the priest to discuss in detail.

 

[mesquite_magic]

What would you suggest to an RCIA instructor if a person is in an “irregular” situation and asks whether they are living in sin? Particularly if one has taught that the “irregular” situation is sinful?

God Bless,
Michael

Wellllll… because I’m an overly honest person, or as my dh says, “honest to a fault”. I’d tell them what the Catholic Church says. Period.

Now this can be done nicely. The priest doesn’t have to go all “Hell-fire and brimstone” on them. Just state the facts and tell them how to rectify it. He can do this in a general way that doesn’t point directly to a couple in question. If it’s brought up in RCIA than it definately should be discussed in RCIA. YKWIM? If you only discuss it privately then you leave out a lot of other people who have the same question but are too afraid to ask.

In a historical context, there was a time (the Middle Ages) when a couple was hand-fasted (engaged) and basically living together until the priest could get to them. I believe we’ve discussed it on here. I’ll have to look it up.

Kim

 

[manualman]

Dollars to donuts says the ‘catholic source’ was a recent US Catholic magazine article by a professor or researcher at Creighton University. Sadly, the article really did make an argument like that.

If that is what he is thinking, it might perhaps be useful to point out to him that the particular institute at Creighton that employs the author losts its rights to be considered Catholic as a result of the flap. The local bishop stripped them of his imprimatur!

In the future, he might want to realize that when US Catholic Magazine argues a point forcefully, it is most likely at odds with genuine Catholic teaching.

 

[Contarini]

A priest cited a Catholic source saying that “committed sex” is not sinful. In other words, if two people have been living together without being married, the sexual acts they perform are not sinful because they are in a committed relationship.

The only way this would be true is if the couple had made vows to each other that they fully intended to be marriage vows, and had simply not solemnized those vows in a public ceremony. But even then you’d have to ask why they hadn’t gotten married legally. In a desert island situation, obviously simply making vows to each other would be fine. In normal circumstances, however, such an action gives scandal, because “commitment” can mean a lot of things (in our society, for instance, it generally doesn’t mean that the relationship is indissoluble).

Note: as my signature tells you, I am not a Catholic. My opinion does not necessarily represent that of the Catholic Church, though I’m confident that the medieval Church would agree with me.

Edwin

 

[Delphinus85]

A priest cited a Catholic source saying that “committed sex” is not sinful. In other words, if two people have been living together without being married, the sexual acts they perform are not sinful because they are in a committed relationship. Any thoughts? Is anyone familiar with this “source.”

God Bless,
Michael

Being “committed” is not the same as being one flesh joined in the sacrament of marriage. I’m sorry but this priest is leading a lot pf people astray and potentially ruining a LOT of wedding nights.

 

[otjm]

then it did not happen. the general rule in rebutting such remarks is to demand a reliable source.

Yes, it did happen (that is, the study); there is another thread within these fora which have discussed the issue. It has come from at least one college professor - sorry, I do not recall whether they were in the field of sociology or theology - and is a recent proposal. It would appear that the priest the aOP mentions has not doen his homework. There are new studies coming out in the field of Sociology which run directly counter to this bozo idea (it is not exactly new; it has been around for lo, these 40 years) which was from the journal Demography, by Danile Licther of Cornell University; his study showed a 90% fail rate of relationships (incuding marriage) of those who cohabited.

I am sorry I cannot name the study which proposed shacking up as a means of reducing divorce, but it was failry recent.

And because the study hit the news, I would not be the least bit surprised if some priest picked it up and ran with it. Ordination is no guarantee of sainthood, orthodoxy, or even common sense.

 

[mgrfin]

Being “committed” is not the same as being one flesh joined in the sacrament of marriage. I’m sorry but this priest is leading a lot pf people astray and potentially ruining a LOT of wedding nights.

I tend to agree with you. The concept of ‘committed sex’ might be new, and certainly it is not in the medieval church.

For catholics, the marriage would have to be before a ‘duly authorized priest’. “Committed sex” is not the essential of a sacramental marriage. As is, there is no contractual obligation, which is essential, I believe.

This is my gut reaction, and I yield to any Catholic moral theologians out there.

peace

peace.

 

[Corki]

Yes, it did happen (that is, the study); there is another thread within these fora which have discussed the issue. It has come from at least one college professor - sorry, I do not recall whether they were in the field of sociology or theology - and is a recent proposal. It would appear that the priest the aOP mentions has not doen his homework. There are new studies coming out in the field of Sociology which run directly counter to this bozo idea (it is not exactly new; it has been around for lo, these 40 years) which was from the journal Demography, by Danile Licther of Cornell University; his study showed a 90% fail rate of relationships (incuding marriage) of those who cohabited.

I am sorry I cannot name the study which proposed shacking up as a means of reducing divorce, but it was failry recent.

And because the study hit the news, I would not be the least bit surprised if some priest picked it up and ran with it. Ordination is no guarantee of sainthood, orthodoxy, or even common sense.

I remember that thread. But even in that study, the writers were only proposing a change to Church teaching to be more in line with ancient betrothal ceremonies. They were not saying that it is ok according to current Church teaching.

 

[manualman]

Actually, the Creighton folks that wrote the US Catholic article SAID they were basing their ideas on ancient betrothal ceremonies. But they were being dishonest. They were endorsing ‘committed couples’ having premarital sex. Couples that had NOT taken ANY sort of vows of permanency. As usual for such authors, they were careful to leave an escape hatch if censured, but they were absolutely greenlighting ‘serial monogamy.’ They don’t SAY they endorse it, but you might notice that there was NO mention of any need for couples in such a relationship to have it declared null before entering a new relationship! They are trying to have it both ways.

They have a remotely true point. In a situation where a priest is not available (like the desert island), couples can chose to enter a natural marriage and live together and make babies. No moral problem with that as long as they get their marriage validated by the Church as soon as possible.

 

[Chancellare]

though I’m confident that the medieval Church would agree with me.

Edwin

If you are referring to RC as “medieval”, it’s a bit chronologically inaccurate. If it is meant to be a derogatory one, all the more a mistake. If it is borne out of lack of understanding, forgiveness would be what’s best.