Premarital Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter schoolteacher68
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
Someone who has sexual relations with someone they do not believe in good faith that they’ve married is committing fornication. For a Catholic, a civil union would not be a marriage in good faith, because a Catholic has a duty to learn what constitutes a valid marriage for a Catholic and to follow the laws of the Church concerning marriage. (You could argue whether the Catholic is guilty of not forming his or her conscience concerning grave matters of moral law rather than fornication, but that is splitting hairs.)

Having said that, a civil union or a civil marriage can be both an encumbrance on a Catholic that prevents their freedom to marry someone else and yet also NOT a valid marriage. A Catholic who is legally married in the eyes of the state is not free to marry someone else, even if they are not married in the eyes of the Church. They have to dissolve the legal encumbrance before they are free to enter a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
What if a Catholic only enters a civil union with another non-Catholic Christian. At a later point the Catholic tries to return to the faith and wants to get married in the church. Unfortunately, the other Christian is strictly against it and doesn’t agree. The other Christian wants the Catholic to convert as a condition for marriage in the church. Assume they have children, and even want more, divorce is not an option.
What then? This could also mean premarital sex. It was the Catholic’s fault not to insist on a marriage in the church in the first place. It is not the Catholic’s fault now. Would the Catholic be required to abandon the hope for further children and live as brother and sister for the rest of the life if he/she wants to receive? Does AL say anything about such scenarios?
 
Constantin said:
What if a Catholic only enters a civil union with another non-Catholic Christian. At a later point the Catholic tries to return to the faith and wants to get married in the church. Unfortunately, the other Christian is strictly against it and doesn’t agree. The other Christian wants the Catholic to convert as a condition for marriage in the church. Assume they have children, and even want more, divorce is not an option.
What then? This could also mean premarital sex. It was the Catholic’s fault not to insist on a marriage in the church in the first place. It is not the Catholic’s fault now. Would the Catholic be required to abandon the hope for further children and live as brother and sister for the rest of the life if he/she wants to receive? Does AL say anything about such scenarios?
Click to expand...
I am not sure if this applies to such a situation but seems I learned sometime ago of a thing called “Healing at the Roots”. I don’t know the Latin name for it… but one might check into that and see if it does apply. As long as neither have ever been married before. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
I am not sure if this applies to such a situation but seems I learned sometime ago of a thing called “Healing at the Roots”. I don’t know the Latin name for it… but one might check into that and see if it does apply. As long as neither have ever been married before.
Click to expand...
It’s called sanatio in radice (“radical sanation”); it’s one of the ways to convalidate a marriage in the Catholic Church.
40.png
Constantin:
What if a Catholic only enters a civil union with another non-Catholic Christian.
Click to expand...
OK… at that point, the Church would not consider this a valid marriage, since the Catholic is required to be married in the Church, and not simply civilly.
At a later point the Catholic tries to return to the faith and wants to get married in the church.
Click to expand...
This might or might not be possible. It would depend on whether either (or both!) of the spouses were previously validly married to others. This determination would depend on an examination of all previous marriages (and all previous marriages of any previous spouse(s), such that all the people putatively married – previous spouses, and their previous spouses, and so on, and so on – would have had their marriages examined for validity). The whole analysis is meant to answer one simple question: was this couple (your Catholic and non-Catholic Christian civilly married couple) able to contract marriage at the time of their wedding, or were either or both of them still bound to a previous valid marriage?
Unfortunately, the other Christian is strictly against it and doesn’t agree.
Click to expand...
This is where ‘radical sanation’ might come into play. Ordinarily, the couple approaches the priest, and asks for their marriage to be ‘blessed’. What the Church is able to offer is not a ‘blessing’, but rather, an actual marriage ceremony. So, following all the norms of the Church, the priest or deacon is then able to marry them in an actual wedding ceremony, such that what results is a valid marriage in the Church.

However, some couples are in the position you describe: the Catholic spouse wants a valid Catholic marriage, and the other spouse wants no part in it. So, the Catholic spouse can go to a priest, and the process known as ‘radical sanation’ can be entered into. The other spouse does not have to participate – or even be aware of – this process. No ceremony takes place. The result of this process, too, is a valid marriage in the Church.
The other Christian wants the Catholic to convert as a condition for marriage in the church.
Click to expand...
Now I’m confused. First, you said that the non-Catholic wants no part in a Catholic wedding ceremony. Now, you seem to be saying that he will go along with it, but only if his spouse gives up her Catholic faith?

If that’s what you’re saying, then any such marriage would be invalid, since the non-Catholic spouse would be placing a condition on the marriage.
Assume they have children, and even want more, divorce is not an option.
What then?
Click to expand...
Radical sanation – “healing at the root” – sanatio in radice. Or, alternatively, continuing to live in an invalid marriage.
Would the Catholic be required to abandon the hope for further children and live as brother and sister for the rest of the life if he/she wants to receive? Does AL say anything about such scenarios?
Click to expand...
The pastoral solution of “living as brother and sister” was one proposed by St Pope John Paul II as one means of resolving this difficulty. However, the situation you’ve outlined is different than the one he described. In JPII’s example, both spouses are good with the pastoral solution. In your example, you’ve got the much more thorny situation – the non-Catholic is not on board with the Catholic take on things. Therefore, the suggestion of “living as brother and sister” (in order for the Catholic to return to the sacraments) is likely to cause great marital discord!

AL does seem implicitly to address situations such as these. However, the jury’s still out: it’s far too early to be able to say what effect – if any – AL will have on this question.
 
@Gorgias: Thank you very much!
What would the sanatio in radice mean for a later marriage?
I guess the Catholic could not marry the other Christian in a Catholic ceremony then (should the other Christian agree to it after all), because they already have a sacramental marriage?
Also, of course the Catholic would not be free to marry another person then.
Third, I think that for the other Christian this would have zero effect - other jurisdiction.
Am I right?
I fear that I am taking over this thread which was about moral theology. Sorry, but I am really interested in this.
 
casslean said:
How did you interpret THAT to read that fornication might not have been a sin? I’m talking about marriage. Not fornication. **You seem to believe that marriage has to look like it does today - as in registrations, licenses, etc - in order to be valid. I’m trying to explain that those do not “make” a marriage.
**
As was explained above, marriage is the union of a man and woman for their whole life, ordered for their good and for procreation.

Fornication is sex outside the marriage covenant. The marriage covenant isn’t a marriage license. So, no, I’m not saying anything about fornication.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by look like?
 
Sky_River said:
Do you think based on the idea of a marriage covenant, besides the perverted aspects, same sex marriages are ungodly? I’ve read that marriage isnt essentially a sexual union.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by ungodly?
I’ve Read that Tom Sawyer got someone else to paint the fence.
 
Sky_River said:
Do you think based on the idea of a marriage covenant, besides the perverted aspects, same sex marriages are ungodly? I’ve read that marriage isnt essentially a sexual union.
Click to expand...
“Besides the perverted aspects”–LOL!

That’s like saying “Do you think this relationship is holy, besides the fact that he locks me in a closet?”
 
Sky_River said:
Do you think based on the idea of a marriage covenant, besides the perverted aspects, same sex marriages are ungodly? I’ve read that marriage isnt essentially a sexual union.
Click to expand...
I’ve read that Jesus is coming back tomorrow. You gotta be a little discerning in what you read.
 
Constantin said:
@Gorgias: Thank you very much!
Click to expand...
You’re welcome!
I fear that I am taking over this thread which was about moral theology. Sorry, but I am really interested in this.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Well, then… how about you go over to the ‘liturgy & sacraments’ part of the forum, and start a thread on “Radical Sanation”, and ask the questions you have in mind over there?
What would the sanatio in radice mean for a later marriage?
Click to expand...
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking here. Are you asking what would happen if that marriage (in which one spouse had made recourse to sanation) failed, and the spouses went looking for another marriage? If so, then the answer is that it’s the same case as if a couple had been married in the Church or had had their marriage convalidated with a marriage ceremony. It’s still considered a valid marriage, even if sanation was the route through which the marriage was validated.

On the other hand, perhaps you’re asking whether there might be the possibility that a marriage in which sanation occurred could later be nullified? Yes, that’s possible, too. The proof would be somewhat different, in terms of the time frame that would be looked at, but it’s possible (just like any other marriage that’s examined in the context of a nullity proceeding).
I guess the Catholic could not marry the other Christian in a Catholic ceremony then (should the other Christian agree to it after all), because they already have a sacramental marriage?
Click to expand...
Subsequent to the sanation? I think that the pastoral thing to do would be to have a lovely anniversary celebration in Church in which the rings are blessed and the couple re-affirms their commitment to each other. Not a wedding, mind you, but the blessing of a couple on the occasion of their anniversary. (There’s a very nice rite for that in the new Marriage ritual.)
Also, of course the Catholic would not be free to marry another person then.
Click to expand...
Correct. Nor would the non-Catholic. 😉
Third, I think that for the other Christian this would have zero effect - other jurisdiction.
Am I right?
Click to expand...
Well… not exactly. Let’s suppose that the couple later divorced, and subsequently, the Christian found a Catholic whom he wished to marry. If that Catholic wanted a valid marriage, they’d have to go through the process of determining whether the two were each free to marry, and the priest or deacon would find the notation of the sanation (we hope!), and the Christian would be told that a nullity proceeding would be necessary in order to determine the validity of his first marriage before he could enter into another marriage.

So, not exactly zero effect…
 
PRmerger said:
“Besides the perverted aspects”–LOL!

That’s like saying “Do you think this relationship is holy, besides the fact that he locks me in a closet?”
Click to expand...
I’ve read marriage is not essentially a sexual union.
 
Sky_River said:
I’ve read marriage is not essentially a sexual union.
Click to expand...
Who was the author of this statement?

Can you offer a link for this?

Are you saying that this statement reflects the views of the CC towards marriage?

:confused:
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Where did you read that?
Click to expand...
bible.org/seriespage/13-nature-marriage-union
The act of sexual intercourse never, in itself, constituted marriage.538 In the Bible, premarital sex, if discovered, led to a forced marriage unless the father of the woman insisted otherwise (Exod. 22:16 f.; Deut. 22:28 f.). The legal bond gave the only proper moral context for sexual union (Gen. 2:24). The woman in such cases of premarital sex was considered to have been “defiled.” At least one word (halal) used in the Old Testament to describe sexual defilement implies a controversion of God’s planned order.539 And the more common term (tame) implies “uncleanness,” an interruption of the wholeness or wholesomeness of life.540 Marriage is never typified simply by the sexual act, or even by the idea of “one flesh.”541
Click to expand...
It might be argued that a marriage is not final until sexual relations have taken place. Deuteronomy 20:7 speaks of a man who has become engaged to a woman but has not “taken” her yet. The woman is an “unclaimed blessing.” The text reveals that the covenant with her has not been consummated. But the term used (laqah) is not the most common Hebrew word for marriage, and in the Deuteronomic text it may simply be referring to consummation rather than to marriage per se. Beyond this, there are a number of other passages that understand the engaged couple to enjoy the same status before law as those persons in a fully consummated union, though they have not had sexual union.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Oh, well, maybe you can bring that to a discussion with that author who is not a representative of the CC’s teaching.
Click to expand...
What is your rebuttal of the quotes? I’m open to your contrasting views. i hold no bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top