Papal Mass for Cohabitating Couples

[Jon_S_1]

Does mortal sin bar one from the sacraments? Or does it impede the full graces of the sacrament until it is absolved? (One does certainly commit a sacrilege by approaching the sacraments in a state of mortal sin*)

(* Reconciliation aside)

tee

Good point

It seems mortal sin does not bar one from the sacraments. Certainly not baptism, confession, confirmation or last rights

I can’t imagine marriage being different.

 

[Emily2014]

I don’t think you are on the same wavelength as some of us here. If you really think that living together before marriage is the worst sin humans can commit, then you won’t understand all of the comments above mine either. Here we are on the anniversary of 9/11 and you are obsessed with sexual sin. Good for Papa Francis for reaching out to those couples who want to marry, even if they are living together or have children.

Totally agree and Thank God for our wonderful Pope who speaks of loving our neighbour, avoiding gossip and being kind to one another.
The constant emphasis on SIN in most CAF posts is not compatible with modern life or with the way Pope Francis speaks. It also gives a terribly negative impression of Catholicism.

 

[ProVobis]

Good point

It seems mortal sin does not bar one from the sacraments. Certainly not baptism, confession, confirmation or last rights

I can’t imagine marriage being different.

This is confusing. Do you think all priests will baptize those who cohabit with another?

 

[ProVobis]

It also gives a terribly negative impression of Catholicism.

Why do you say this? It seems it wasn’t that long ago people looked at the Catholic Church for moral leadership, and had done so for many centuries, if not going all the way back to the early Church. Sin has to be recognized as such; it’s unfortunate that it’s glamorized in the movies, on college campuses, etc.

 

[DarkLight]

You don’t always have to move out of the home. Just out of the bed. In some instances, (for example if one is not Catholic and they have children) the priest may take a confession from the Catholic before pre-Cana, and then take another confession on the day of the wedding or night before.

Right. The couple would be expected to be abstinent until marriage - living together in such a situation is not by itself sinful, assuming proper care is taken to avoid scandal as much as is practicable.

This is confusing. Do you think all priests will baptize those who cohabit with another?

Given that baptism is for the remission of sins, a priest will generally not baptize someone who is in a persistent state of sin, unless in danger of death. It is not that they are canonically barred, but that the priest does not wish to baptize someone who they know will immediately fall into a state of mortal sin.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is confusing. Do you think all priests will baptize those who cohabit with another?

Whether they will or not is a side point. The fact is a person can indeed be validly and licitly baptized if they are cohabiting, or if they swore at some one on the way or if they were a career prostitute on their dying breath.

 

[ProVobis]

Whether they will or not is a side point. The fact is a person can indeed be validly and licitly baptized if they are cohabiting, or if they swore at some one on the way or if they were a career prostitute on their dying breath.

Dying or danger of death changes the landscape.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Dying or danger of death changes the landscape.

Yes but again it is completely valid and licit to baptize anyone at anytime…the church may withhold do to a prudential judgement, but that does not mean it is forbidden.

 

[Seraphim73]

We should all rejoice that these people are making themselves right with God and the Church.

 

[phil19034]

We should all rejoice that these people are making themselves right with God and the Church.

Amen

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why do you say this? It seems it wasn’t that long ago people looked at the Catholic Church for moral leadership, and had done so for many centuries, if not going all the way back to the early Church. Sin has to be recognized as such; it’s unfortunate that it’s glamorized in the movies, on college campuses, etc.

I can’t speak for Emily but if you reread Emily’s post you’ll find she referred to the constant emphasis of sin. Things like love and kindness and mercy and striving to follow Christ’s command to be slower to judge others while we deal with our own planks, are all things that should not take a backseat or be trumped or be lost in the shuffle. So I think that could be why she said it.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You should be happy that the cohabitating couples are getting married in the Church and welcome them as the Prodigal Son.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You should be happy that the cohabitating couples are getting married in the Church and welcome them as the Prodigal Son.

I actually think it’s a good way to cut these couples some slack. Now they’re married and no longer have to deal with being guilt-tripped for not tying the knot.

From a business perspective, you can actually see the Church is providing a service. Want cohabiting couples to stop cohabiting? Throw a Papal Mass where they can finally get married!

Sounds very convenient if you ask me.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes but again it is completely valid and licit to baptize anyone at anytime…the church may withhold do to a prudential judgement, but that does not mean it is forbidden.

Semantics.

I can argue that I “can” eat meat on Good Friday and openly flout it in public, meaning it’s physically possible to do it, but it won’t change that it’s against Church current law and people should not be ignoring me.

Poor example, I know, but I think you see my point, which is really not a point at all.

Given that baptism is for the remission of sins, a priest will generally not baptize someone who is in a persistent state of sin, unless in danger of death. It is not that they are canonically barred, but that the priest does not wish to baptize someone who they know will immediately fall into a state of mortal sin.

Thank you.

 

[Tomster]

I just read an article in the Catholic Review that Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, will preside at a Papal Mass and wedding ceremony for couples who have been cohabitating and couples who already have children.

The article went on to say “while cohabitating is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, it is contrary to the church’s teaching on marriage and sexual love.”

I am completely confused by this latest news from Rome. I have always been taught that a man and woman living together outside of marriage are committing the sin of fornication. Why, all of a sudden, is this not still a fact?

Nothing is said in the long article about these couples going to Confession and repenting for this (IMHO) terrible sin.

Is the Catholic Church I grew up with now changing its policy on marriage. Is it now okay to just “live together” and forget about it?

Very soon I am afraid we will hear that same sex marriage is now permitted in the Catholic Church.

:knight1:

I would appreciate some reasonable answers, please.

CCC #1650 deals with this effectively. I appears that Cardinal Kasper has a different view though. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the upcoming Synod on the Family regarding this topic.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Color me confused.

I can argue that I “can” eat meat on Good Friday and openly flout it in public, meaning it’s physically possible to do it, but it won’t change that it’s against Church current law and people should not be ignoring me.

Is it your assertion that, though *it’s physically possible to *perform a marriage for a cohabitating couple, but that it’s against Church current law???

Or do you mean something else (and that is why you admit the poverty of the example)???


tee

 

[ProVobis]

Color me confused.

Is it your assertion that, though *it’s physically possible to *perform a marriage for a cohabitating couple, but that it’s against Church current law???

Or do you mean something else (and that is why you admit the poverty of the example)???


tee

No, not about marriage but baptizing one who cohabits. I’m quite aware that the Church allows marrying openly flouting cohabiting couples. It doesn’t prohibit baptisms for same, for that matter, but what are we talking about if not doing a semantic exercise?

Maybe I should have asked you why you brought up the point in the first place (post #20), expanded by Jon_S. What were your (plural) intentions?

 

[tee_eff_em]

No, not about marriage but baptizing one who cohabits. I’m quite aware that the Church allows marrying openly flouting cohabiting couples. It doesn’t prohibit baptisms for same, for that matter, but what are we talking about if not doing a semantic exercise?

Maybe I should have asked you why you brought up the point in the first place (post #20), expanded by Jon_S. What were your (plural) intentions?

I was responding to another’s assertion that *mortal sin …, if you haven’t confessed them yet *bars one from the sacraments.

It was my intention to question that assertion. To my knowledge, it is not the case that *mortal sin …, if you haven’t confessed them yet *bars anyone from the sacraments.

tee

 

[ProVobis]

I was responding to another’s assertion that *mortal sin …, if you haven’t confessed them yet *bars one from the sacraments.

It was my intention to question that assertion. To my knowledge, it is not the case that *mortal sin …, if you haven’t confessed them yet *bars anyone from the sacraments.

tee

It doesn’t “bar” them nor “prohibit” them, in terms of legal or physical possibility, if that’s what you mean.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It doesn’t “bar” them nor “prohibit” them, in terms of legal or physical possibility, if that’s what you mean.

That is what I mean, particularly the *legal *part since, wrt marriage, Canon Law tells us:

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

The OP seems to wish sinners to prohibited from marrying. The Church disagrees.
Much to the relief of this married sinner.

tee