Concerning changes to the sacrament of marriage (communion for divorced and remarried)

[Vico]

…
My question as a Catholic is: what is the appropriate reaction among ‘true’ or ‘faithful’ Catholics if the Pope makes an unpopular (in certain circles) change to a substantial practice? Is it acceptable to gripe about it, or to form a schismatic group, or abandon the church? Or do we just suck it up and go with it?

The faith and the dogma is that the Church is infallible on faith and morals. An unpopular (in certain circles) declaration is not unheard of, for example the Immaculate Conception. You must avoid opposition to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals.

According to Pope John Paul II, for Catholics in merely civil unions, communion is barred. However, there is a pastoral option sometimes exercised with a vow of no sexual relations and to avoid all scandal, but only for the civilly remarried Catholic, when children are involved, or it is virtually impossible to separate. (The Catholic may only be able to receive in secret or at another parish where unknown.)

CIC Canon Law (Latin Church)

Canon 750§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[sscott]

A little reminder here. When Pope Benedict was in power he liked to dot every i and cross every t when it came to rules of the church. Conservatives were really happy about this and chided the less devout about their lack of obedience to the Pope. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot and there is a Pope who is willing to bend a little on some of the rules for charity’s sake. The same advise applies. Your owe obedience to the Pope even if you don’t agree with him or when he demotes your favorite conservative bishop.
That said, his reasons for bending the rules a bit have to do with the next generation. If you alienate a whole generation of Catholics, then their children will also be alienated. Why don’t you wait to see what he decides before you know you won’t like it, based on speculation? I am sure he will make a rule which will make sense for the church as a whole. I believe it will be based on his idea of a more streamlined annulment procedure, which many won’t agree with either. Being trapped in a horrible marriage is not exactly the way to feel God’s love.

 

[otjm]

Problem I have with this is Burke is probably going to ddemoted. Pope Francis has been demoting conservative cardinals.

Of course. That is why he put Cardinal Oullet in as Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops.

It is called myopia.

 

[otjm]

A little reminder here. When Pope Benedict was in power he liked to dot every i and cross every t when it came to rules of the church. Conservatives were really happy about this and chided the less devout about their lack of obedience to the Pope. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot and there is a Pope who is willing to bend a little on some of the rules for charity’s sake. The same advise applies. Your owe obedience to the Pope even if you don’t agree with him or when he demotes your favorite conservative bishop.
That said, his reasons for bending the rules a bit have to do with the next generation. If you alienate a whole generation of Catholics, then their children will also be alienated. Why don’t you wait to see what he decides before you know you won’t like it, based on speculation? I am sure he will make a rule which will make sense for the church as a whole. I believe it will be based on his idea of a more streamlined annulment procedure, which many won’t agree with either. Being trapped in a horrible marriage is not exactly the way to feel God’s love.

According to CARA: 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree of nullity. 8% of divorced Catholics who at least started the process have not received a decree of nullity; either by decision of the tribunal, or withdrawing their petition.

That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not even started the process. It would appear that this may be part of what is behind this conversation.

 

[RaphaelJ]

bend a little on some of the rules for charity’s sake

Yes, well rule bending is very slippery. If the Church bends a rule (without proper theological justification), then this can lead to other inconvenient rules being bent. An active homosexual being told he/she is not in sin and can receive communion? How about bending the rules about the morality of excess capitalism for the sake of the economy? I’m actually considering the possibility of this rule being relaxed and I pray that it is not. What is perhaps necessary is a more streamlined annulment system. Either way, I pray I do not sound brain dead if I say that obedience binds me to the Church whether I agree or not.

 

[otjm]

Yes, well rule bending is very slippery. If the Church bends a rule (without proper theological justification), then this can lead to other inconvenient rules being bent. An active homosexual being told he/she is not in sin and can receive communion? How about bending the rules about the morality of excess capitalism for the sake of the economy? I’m actually considering the possibility of this rule being relaxed and I pray that it is not. What is perhaps necessary is a more streamlined annulment system. Either way, I pray I do not sound brain dead if I say that obedience binds me to the Church whether I agree or not.

I am inclined to think that people are getting their their knickers in a knot because of reliance on media reporting, and because they fail to realize that media stays in business too often because it is excellent at “stirring the pot”. Cardinal Burke is right - the media by and large have hijacked this issue.

Your comment about “bending” a rule without “proper theological justification” makes for an interesting statement. There certainly have been a number of individuals who have complained high, wide and handsome over the changes between the 1917 Code and the new Code, because the new Code allowed grounds for nullity to be determined based on psychological issues. They saw it as an absolute bending of the rules, if not an outright discarding of the rules.

Without getting into a long justification for the changes, my observation is that those who reject the new grounds know little about sacramental theology, are in way over their heads, and odds on, many of them are rejecting it not on theological grounds but because they have perosnal experience of the matters and cannot reconcile their understanding (or major lack of it) and their experience.

Most of those sitting in the pews ( I really don’t get excited about non-practicing Catholics critiquing Church decisions) - those in the pews most generally have little or no significant depth of training in theology; and too often they rely on someone who likewise is lacking in theological training who has a blog, or a newspaper or other means of communicating personal opinions on matters theological. As in, the blind leading the blind. And this goes to both ends of the spectrum - the liberals and the conservatives.

Then there is the issue of “So and So Theologian”, as if the opinion of someone with a degree now supersedes the Magisterium. That is not to say that there are not good and competent theologians who explain Church actions and decisions; but sorting out who actually speaks with the mind of the Church, and who is simply speaking their own opinion in contravention to the mind of the Church often gets lost in a “This theologian supports my opinion”.

We need to sit back, relax, and trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Church as it examines a major, major problem. All the fear and anxiety I have been seeing seems to miss the point that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church has been around for 2,000 years, and in spite of all of the sinful people who have been members, still manages to present the Gospel, the message of Christ. I kind of think it will continue to do so.

 

[RaphaelJ]

I fear that I may have indeed been guilty of a form of intellectual pride although I admit that I do not have a degree or formal training in anything other than basic theology because it is required in a Catholic university. I think one thing that may put my mind at ease is to determine whether giving communion to those in a state of adultery is something changeable or is morally unallowable.

 

[otjm]

I fear that I may have indeed been guilty of a form of intellectual pride although I admit that I do not have a degree or formal training in anything other than basic theology because it is required in a Catholic university. I think one thing that may put my mind at ease is to determine whether giving communion to those in a state of adultery is something changeable or is morally unallowable.

It is my understanding that this issue cannot change (from some of the public exchanges of some Cardinals), but a) that is my impression from reading what they have said and b) should something of some variation come forth, I have enough trust in the Holy Spirit and the 2000 years of wisdom of the Church to say "Roma locuta est, causa finite est.

Which comes down to this: Rome has spoken; the matter is decided, now shut up.

The last three words being mine solely.

 

[Tigg]

Without getting into a long justification for the changes, my observation is that those who reject the new grounds know little about sacramental theology, are in way over their heads, and odds on, many of them are rejecting it not on theological grounds but because they have perosnal experience of the matters and cannot reconcile their understanding (or major lack of it) and their experience.

Most of those sitting in the pews ( I really don’t get excited about non-practicing Catholics critiquing Church decisions) - those in the pews most generally have little or no significant depth of training in theology; and too often they rely on someone who likewise is lacking in theological training who has a blog, or a newspaper or other means of communicating personal opinions on matters theological. As in, the blind leading the blind. And this goes to both ends of the spectrum - the liberals and the conservatives.

Then there is the issue of “So and So Theologian”, as if the opinion of someone with a degree now supersedes the Magisterium. That is not to say that there are not good and competent theologians who explain Church actions and decisions; but sorting out who actually speaks with the mind of the Church, and who is simply speaking their own opinion in contravention to the mind of the Church often gets lost in a “This theologian supports my opinion”.

We need to sit back, relax, and trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Church as it examines a major, major problem. All the fear and anxiety I have been seeing seems to miss the point that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church has been around for 2,000 years, and in spite of all of the sinful people who have been members, still manages to present the Gospel, the message of Christ. I kind of think it will continue to do so.

Or we could be on our knees praying for the intercession of the Holy Spirit and protection over Christ’s Church because history tells us of the disloyalties in the past that have resulted in such unfaithfulness that many of the clergy today have declared a crisis in the Church. How quickly we have forgotten the '60’s and the dissention over HV when large numbers of bishops and theologians betrayed the Holy Father. This is but one example of the crisis of authority that continues to manifest itself in the contemporary Church.

The typical Catholic does not have any theological training and if the priests were doing their job in catechizing that would be sufficient, if it were not for widespread disobedience and false teaching, You do realize that many divorced/remarried already receive communion to their eternal detriment and some do so with the full knowledge of their pastors. Perhaps you can lend me your rose-colored glasses and before I am misunderstood, I will say I stand on the promises of Christ for His Church, but I am not so naïve to believe that further suffering will not be in the works. Christ may just lead us on a circuitous route while purifying His Church and we’d best be equipped with much fidelity and discernment. I normally do not take into account anything the media says, but those who dub a “doctrinal war” in this one instance, just may be correct. At any rate, I believe there will be a battle, at least spiritual, fought by spiritual principalities for the Church, which, as we already know has Her future secure, but at what cost to souls who may have already been mislead before truth prevails.

 

[otjm]

Or we could be on our knees praying for the intercession of the Holy Spirit and protection over Christ’s Church because history tells us of the disloyalties in the past that have resulted in such unfaithfulness that many of the clergy today have declared a crisis in the Church.

Tigg, this is a prime example of my suggestion that we need to calm down. To begin with, I never suggested that we should not pray.
we should always pray - which is why I do perpetual adoration each week, and have been doing so for so many years I have lost count. But that is not what I was talking about - I am talking about the “crisis mode” people are operating in over a synod.

How quickly we have forgotten the '60’s and the dissention over HV when large numbers of bishops and theologians betrayed the Holy Father. This is but one example of the crisis of authority that continues to manifest itself in the contemporary Church.

the dissension over HV has nothing to do with the issue at hand - that is a red herring. Let’s try to keep to the topic?

The typical Catholic does not have any theological training and if the priests were doing their job in catechizing that would be sufficient, if it were not for widespread disobedience and false teaching,

Either they have training or they don’t. If the disobedience is from the training, then you have contradicted yourself; the same goes for false teaching. and my mother, who was born in 1917, didn’t have much theological training either. Neither of these issues has anything to o with the synod. Lets’ keep to the topic? While the Pope has invited lay people to the synod, any decision will be mae by the bishops to be ratified by the Pope, an protected by the Holy Spirit. It will not be decided by the secular press; nor will it be decided by the Remnant or the National Catholic Reporter. OK?

You do realize that many divorced/remarried already receive communion to their eternal detriment and some do so with the full knowledge of their pastors.

Unless you have spoken with those pastors or have something other than anecdotal evidence (meaning you read it somewhere, without source an citation), that borders on calumny. I am not naïve. But the great majority of people who have remarried without a decree of nullity concerning the first marriage are not going to Communion, because they are not going to Church.

Perhaps you can lend me your rose-colored glasses and before I am misunderstood, I will say I stand on the promises of Christ for His Church, but I am not so naïve to believe that further suffering will not be in the works.

There has been suffering in the Church since the time of the apostles. That is irrelevant to the synod. I don’t have any rose colored glasses - what I do have is some theological training, which holds that the Holy Spirit always guides the Church in matters of Faith and Morals - and I still believe that is true, and the Holy Spirit will guide this synod. Do you believe that, or do you not believe what the Church teaches on that matter? And if you believe, then why the panic-like post? That is not about rose colored glasses. It is about trusting God, instead of heating up a whole bunch of electrons about how the “Church obviously is falling apart.” Which it is not.

 

[otjm]

Christ may just lead us on a circuitous route while purifying His Church and we’d best be equipped with much fidelity and discernment. I normally do not take into account anything the media says, but those who dub a “doctrinal war” in this one instance, just may be correct.

Cardinal Burke was right- the media is stirring this point and trying to hijack the synod. It won’t - because of the Holy Spirit.

At any rate, I believe there will be a battle, at least spiritual, fought by spiritual principalities for the Church, which, as we already know has Her future secure, but at what cost to souls who may have already been mislead before truth prevails.

You are rambling and seem to be off point. This is a synod; and all the panic and all the angst and all the doubt and all the cries of crisis are just a bunch of hot air.

There has been rampant speculation amongst the secular media - who rarely ever gets much of anything right about the Church - as to whether or not doctrine or morals would change.

There is a real short answer to that question - it is “No.” Further discussion of that with the media is essentially pointless.

People who ought to know better - people who profess to be Catholics loyal to the Church and its teaching - are going off half cocked. There is absolutely no excuse for that - nothing has changed in the last 2000 years, or for that matter, in the last 5 years, or 48 hours. There is a very legitimate discussion which is needed - and that is, what can we as Church do about that 85% who have not sought a decree of nullity?

And before you come back at me, go back to your own comment about HV and how it was ignored. Out of the 60’s free sex movement came the overwhelming use of ABC, and hand-in-glove came serial fornication. And you can’t tell me with a straight face that serial fornicators who end up at some point before the altar are highly likely to confect a valid marriage. Coupled with that is the issue of being open to children (remember ABC - that is the opposite). And for there we go to not just serial fornicators, but to serial shackups- “play marriage” which at its root has not just the likelihood, but almost the guarantee of a break up - an you tell me they can suddenly confect a valid marriage?

And then we have the social mindset of society of “Well, if it doesn’t work out…”, aka no-fault divorce; an how many did that effect on the wedding day?

The Church has a duty - given it by Christ - to try to reconcile all to Christ. That 85% (and a portion of the 8% who started the process and did not receive a decree) Need to come to some sort of resolution to see if they can be reconciled to Christ.

Not everyone will; note everyone wants to. But that is not reason to not have this conversation. And having a conversation is not going to result in more dissent - most of those folks have already left the Church, for another church community, or none at all. It is time to try to heal these wounds. And all the panic over the conversation is not assisting anyone.

Marriage is not going to get changed. It can’t.

Divorced people who still have a presumably valid first marriage by and large will not be admitted to Communion. That is an impossibility (although there are certain circumstances where it is a possibility - but that already exists). What is going to come out of this is a better way, hopefully, to help heal people and reconcile them to Christ.

And that is not rose colored glasses - because the Holy Spirit still protects the Church.

 

[phil19034]

Cardinal Burke was right- the media is stirring this point and trying to hijack the synod. It won’t - because of the Holy Spirit. You are rambling and seem to be off point. This is a synod; and all the panic and all the angst and all the doubt and all the cries of crisis are just a bunch of hot air.

There has been rampant speculation amongst the secular media - who rarely ever gets much of anything right about the Church - as to whether or not doctrine or morals would change.

There is a real short answer to that question - it is “No.” Further discussion of that with the media is essentially pointless.

People who ought to know better - people who profess to be Catholics loyal to the Church and its teaching - are going off half cocked. There is absolutely no excuse for that - nothing has changed in the last 2000 years, or for that matter, in the last 5 years, or 48 hours. There is a very legitimate discussion which is needed - and that is, what can we as Church do about that 85% who have not sought a decree of nullity?

And before you come back at me, go back to your own comment about HV and how it was ignored. Out of the 60’s free sex movement came the overwhelming use of ABC, and hand-in-glove came serial fornication. And you can’t tell me with a straight face that serial fornicators who end up at some point before the altar are highly likely to confect a valid marriage. Coupled with that is the issue of being open to children (remember ABC - that is the opposite). And for there we go to not just serial fornicators, but to serial shackups- “play marriage” which at its root has not just the likelihood, but almost the guarantee of a break up - an you tell me they can suddenly confect a valid marriage?

And then we have the social mindset of society of “Well, if it doesn’t work out…”, aka no-fault divorce; an how many did that effect on the wedding day?

The Church has a duty - given it by Christ - to try to reconcile all to Christ. That 85% (and a portion of the 8% who started the process and did not receive a decree) Need to come to some sort of resolution to see if they can be reconciled to Christ.

Not everyone will; note everyone wants to. But that is not reason to not have this conversation. And having a conversation is not going to result in more dissent - most of those folks have already left the Church, for another church community, or none at all. It is time to try to heal these wounds. And all the panic over the conversation is not assisting anyone.

Marriage is not going to get changed. It can’t.

Divorced people who still have a presumably valid first marriage by and large will not be admitted to Communion. That is an impossibility (although there are certain circumstances where it is a possibility - but that already exists). What is going to come out of this is a better way, hopefully, to help heal people and reconcile them to Christ.

And that is not rose colored glasses - because the Holy Spirit still protects the Church.

Amen!

Also, the Media hijacked Vatican II. Let’s not let them hijack this synod.

The Pope will listen to what the progressives will say, because that’s what good leaders do. But he’s not going to change anything. I believe the Pope IS in favor of using 21st century technology to streamline annulments and eliminate the “red tape.”

I think the Pope is also very interested in figuring out what is causing Catholics to fornicate, live together without getting married, get married outside the Church, get married inside the Church but divorce, get remarried without even trying to get an annulment, etc.

Both of my aunts were married twice and the 2nd time they both got married outside the Church without even attempting to get an annulment. My one aunt was chased away by noisy female busy bodies in the parish who looked down on her; while the other misunderstood the priest and didn’t want to seek an annulment because she didn’t want to speak to her ex-husband. Because she thought that she would be forced to interact with him after the horrible things he did; he said no seeking an annulment.

Both of my aunts would have stood a pretty good chance of getting an annulment. But due to terrible education; they didn’t.

The problem is that back in the 40s, 50s and even 60s; people didn’t get divorced. So Catholics didn’t focus on really learning about the annulment process or why the church teaches what it teaches regarding the divorced and remarried (without annulment). A lot of them didn’t even learn about Catholic marriage unless they went to a good pre-Cana class because getting married in the Church was expected by their family and society.

So now, we have several generations to catechize regarding the relationship between marriage, annulments, divorce, and the Church.

This synod will focus on how to figure out how to catechize people from 9 to 99 years old regarding these topics. Plus all the other things that are hurting the families (sports on Sunday instead of Church, etc).

So I ask everyone, traditional and progressive, Catholic and non-Catholic; don’t let the media ruin this synod. Let the Holy Spirit lead the Church as it has for the last 2000 years. Besides, this 2014 session is only an agenda setting session; the real one will be in 2015 after the World Meeting of Families.

God Bless

 

[Tigg]

Unfortunately, otjm, it is absolute truth that some divorced/remarried do attend Mass every Sunday and receive communion. It is a great source of scandal which hurts the Body of Christ. Regarding HV, it is not a red herring; even some of the clergy have linked the issue of communion for the divorced/remarried as a Humanae Vitae “moment”, one of them being Father Z himself:

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/05/divorce-remarriage-communion-wherein-fr-z-rants/

Nowhere in my post did I suggest the Church was not indefectible and genuine concern for the Synod is not panic, nor is it fair to make an accusation against faithful Catholics as going off “half-cocked.” Those who love the Church, who lead a sacramental life and who are rightly anxious about it, (given the Kaspar theorem,) those who are knowledgeable of the faith, who exercise discernment and are prudent, those who have read church history and believe the Spirit the source of prophecy, have much to pray about. That the Church will survive is not in question, that truth can be manipulated and/or ignored as it was in the 60’s IS.

 

[Sirach2]

Unfortunately, otjm, it is absolute truth that some divorced/remarried do attend Mass every Sunday and receive communion. It is a great source of scandal which hurts the Body of Christ.

Right here is a rash judgment of consciences, if it is persisted in. Who is to know whether those in a second marriage without an annulment, and who are visibly seen receiving communion, are practicing the Church’s lawful remedy of sexual abstinence? We are not privy to their bedrooms. If we see them approach for holy communion, it is a serious defect to judge them as being unfaithful and/or unlawfully receiving the sacrament.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest the Church was not indefectible and genuine concern for the Synod is not panic, nor is it fair to make an accusation against faithful Catholics as going off “half-cocked.”

Otjm is rightfully trying to subdue the inordinate concern voiced by lay persons who are taking sides and indiscriminately making remarks about holy, high-ranking prelates of the Church, though they have not read the books of either Cardinal. Even if they did so, their theological training is not even in the ballpark of understanding most of their arguments, one way or another, except for a very elementary knowledge of the faith. I deplore arguments of this kind, as it serves no purpose but to incite others.

For God’s holy sake, let’s trust the working of His Spirit and refrain from judging these Cardinals.

 

[sw85]

My position isn’t that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s that the media is misrepresenting what he’s said.

On the other hand, if he really is asserting that Catholic doctrine on the matter can change, then I am going to call him out on it, because that stands in the face of everything the Church preaches. If he’s so learned in the faith, he should recognize that fact and give his assent to Her, rather than try to find loopholes around established doctrine.

He’s asserting no such thing because no one is talking about any such thing, including Card. Kasper. What is being discussed, rather, is praxis.

Put another way, I can acknowledge that lying is wrong even when I tell a lie. That’s not a case of me changing my beliefs, just of not conforming my behavior to them. What is at stake is whether the Church will continue on her present course of denying communion to “remarried divorcees” (i.e., perpetual adulterers and their concubines) or instead carve out a “pastoral” exception that devours the doctrinal rule.

 

[HelenRose]

I hope that they will streamline the annulment process. Given the attitude and preparation of so many young people it is possible that a large percentage of the marriages are not valid. Many young people get married with the firm conviction that “If things don’t work out we can always get a divorce.” That is justification in and of itself for an annulment .

My son received an annulment. I don’t know if his annulment is an example of how it is done everywhere but for him it was a good experience. He learned a lot about himself, his mistakes and reasons for the “marriage” in the first place.

I was impressed by the gentleness and thoughtfulness of the document. It placed no blame on either parties. It explained why there was not a valid marriage in the kindness way possible.

So I have an idea that will be the approach taken. The media will call the changes a new “Catholic type of Divorce” . Let them. I pay little attention the media anyway. I will trust the Holy Spirit in this matter.

 

[Vico]

… Many young people get married with the firm conviction that “If things don’t work out we can always get a divorce.”…

Helen, do you think that many Catholics celebrate a Catholic marriage with the approval of the Church, without learning that it is lifelong and exclusive? I am wondering if you mean mainly non Catholics? I can understand having the idea the divorce could occur, but that if Catholic, there would be no re-marriage.

 

[phil19034]

I hope that they will streamline the annulment process. Given the attitude and preparation of so many young people it is possible that a large percentage of the marriages are not valid. Many young people get married with the firm conviction that “If things don’t work out we can always get a divorce.” That is justification in and of itself for an annulment .

My son received an annulment. I don’t know if his annulment is an example of how it is done everywhere but for him it was a good experience. He learned a lot about himself, his mistakes and reasons for the “marriage” in the first place.

I was impressed by the gentleness and thoughtfulness of the document. It placed no blame on either parties. It explained why there was not a valid marriage in the kindness way possible.

So I have an idea that will be the approach taken. The media will call the changes a new “Catholic type of Divorce” . Let them. I pay little attention the media anyway. I will trust the Holy Spirit in this matter.

This!

As I understand it, as complex as the annulment process can be, it’s actually the best in the United States. And I hear it’s terrible 18th or 19th century terrible in the rest of the world. I think the Pope wants to universally update the annulment process to use 21st century technology and methods Church-wide.

 

[otjm]

Helen, do you think that many Catholics celebrate a Catholic marriage with the approval of the Church, without learning that it is lifelong and exclusive? I am wondering if you mean mainly non Catholics? I can understand having the idea the divorce could occur, but that if Catholic, there would be no re-marriage.

Vico, your whole question revolves around what the word “learning” means.

Does that mean being able to recite back in a questionnaire that with divorce there is no remarriage?

Is the ability to recite something the same as accepting it?

Does self-honesty come into the equation, and if it does, does it require maturity?

And o we see maturity in the early and mi 20’s group - the same group that has the scary statistics of how many are shacked up at the time they approach a pastor about getting married? And the even greater number who may not be shacked up, but are serial fornicators?

I could go on and on, but the pastor is getting a person who has lived in society for, usually, well over 20 years and in many circumstances, well over 25 years; seen innumerable television shows and movies where people are divorced and remarried, divorced and having “consensual sex” with someone; where crawling into bed is an ordinary part of the plot, rather than a rare one; where they have grown up in a “friends with benefits” and “hook-up” atmosphere which, if they have not experimented in, their friends and/or acquaintances have. And the pastor is supposed to sit them down and get a real, deep, honest commitment to lifelong monogamy , or if the doesn’t work, a lifelong celibacy.

Think about it; 30 seconds should do.

According to CARA, last statistics I saw was that about 20 to maybe 22 percent of baptized Catholics in the age bracket of 18 to 25 attend Mass on a regular basis. And out of that bunch, how many of them truly believe what the Church teachs about marriage? Hint - not anywhere near as many as you might think.

In 1970, there were over 426,000 marriages that took place in the Church. 2014 is projected at about 154,500; and the Catholic population has not shrunk.

Do they learn from the pre marriage classes? I would suspect that most of them could parrot back that marriage is (give the Church definition). Do they believe it and accept it (and by the way, this includes both of them)? Reality shows the answer, and that is, too often “No”.

 

[Vico]

…

I see that scandal is commonly given in these times, regarding marriage. Claiming invincible ignorance with regard to honesty of consent is virtually impossible in these times.

Does hook up mean free union? It is not a term I grew up with.

Knowing * in the same sense as mortal sin knowing of the character of sin, of its opposition to God’s law. (Catechism of PIus X): 4 Q. Is it a sin to transgress a Precept of the Church?
A. Knowingly to transgress a Precept of the Church in grave matter is a mortal sin.

10 Q. Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin?
A. To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.
CIC Canon 1101 – §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§ 2. If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such a party contracts invalidly.

• Hebrews 10:
  **26 **For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, **27 **But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. **28 **A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. **31 **It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.