Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[ddarko]

The church has not held this position for 2000 years. The church’s position on this may not be infallible (I have no idea if you correct), but do you really want to say the Catholic Church has been wrong about something for 2000 years? That is a position that never leads to a good conclusion.

Ok I am baffled at how you miss this. I am 100% with Church teaching. There is a difference between Church teachings and how a church goes about trying to achieve these teachings.

For an example, heresy is WRONG. But the way the Church went about at certain times by burning people at the stake to get rid of heresy was not so RIGHT. Do you see what I am saying?

Btw, maybe you misunderstood what I wrote as well. I think it was rather ambiguous the way I stated it in that post. What I meant to say that “A couple who does not even acknowledge that to them having a sexual relationship before marriage and refuse to even abstain should not be allowed marriage”.

So I am 100% with Church’s teachings on marriage, and human sexuality. No 2000 year old or even ONE day old teaching is challenged by me and NEVER WILL BE.

God Bless

 

[wynnejj]

The church has not held this position for 2000 years. The church’s position on this may not be infallible (I have no idea if you correct), but do you really want to say the Catholic Church has been wrong about something for 2000 years? That is a position that never leads to a good conclusion.

Has the church always allowed marriage between cohabitating couples for 2000 years? I have no idea, but I really doubt it. I especially do not think that the policy is treated as infallible. And, I certainly can’t imagine it in St Peter’s time.

(On another note, I have to thank 1ke too for the great work.)

 

[tafan]

Ok I am baffled at how you miss this. I am 100% with Church teaching. There is a difference between Church teachings and how a church goes about trying to achieve these teachings.

For an example, heresy is WRONG. But the way the Church went about at certain times by burning people at the stake to get rid of heresy was not so RIGHT. Do you see what I am saying?

Btw, maybe you misunderstood what I wrote as well. I think it was rather ambiguous the way I stated it in that post. What I meant to say that “A couple who does not even acknowledge that to them having a sexual relationship before marriage and refuse to even abstain should not be allowed marriage”.

So I am 100% with Church’s teachings on marriage, and human sexuality. No 2000 year old or even ONE day old teaching is challenged by me and NEVER WILL BE.

God Bless

Not its not the difference between church teaching and how the church goes about acheiving them. Your analogy about burning people at the stake is very wrong, since the church did not do that, but the state did. Heresy was a civil crime.

There are only two issues here, church teaching and church law. That is all a priest, such as the one in the original post, has to legitimately base his actions on. Church law is always a reflection of the church’s teaching. I did a little bit of looking in the old canon law and some other old sources and I am pretty sure I am right. Church law has never held that marriage should be withheld due to an existing sexual relationship or sinful condition. So, to my, my point stands.
I agree with 1ke, that valid consent can be given and a couple can understand what they are doing even if they are currently sinful, I am sure it happens all the time since we are all sinners. The church obviously sees it this way. On a practical level, I think a valid Catholic marriage is a good, possible remedy for cohabitation.

 

[1ke]

Has the church always allowed marriage between cohabitating couples for 2000 years? I have no idea, but I really doubt it.

Why yes, it has. Not only allowed but encouraged. See here:

newadvent.org/cathen/04207a.htm

Commenting again only with something new to add which hopefully clears up once and for all the idea that the Church has ever been against those cohabiting correcting their situation through valid marriage.

Bowing out again and not addressing at all the psychology angle which is not relevant.

 

[ddarko]

Not its not the difference between church teaching and how the church goes about acheiving them. Your analogy about burning people at the stake is very wrong, since the church did not do that, but the state did. Heresy was a civil crime.

There are only two issues here, church teaching and church law. That is all a priest, such as the one in the original post, has to legitimately base his actions on. Church law is always a reflection of the church’s teaching. I did a little bit of looking in the old canon law and some other old sources and I am pretty sure I am right. Church law has never held that marriage should be withheld due to an existing sexual relationship or sinful condition. So, to my, my point stands.
I agree with 1ke, that valid consent can be given and a couple can understand what they are doing even if they are currently sinful, I am sure it happens all the time since we are all sinners. The church obviously sees it this way. On a practical level, I think a valid Catholic marriage is a good, possible remedy for cohabitation.

Tafan,

Cohabitation was NEVER a problem untill recently. Your argument that the Church had no position against cohabiting couples who were involved in sexual activity is like arguing that the Church had no position against cloning. In short, it DOESNT say anything. The Church doesn’t sit there producing procedures for handling hypothetical cases, especially when they are not even widespread.

As for the heresy, I was making a point. The Church did NOT disapprove of it.Your defense that the Church was not involved is like pretty contrary to what went on. Sure, the state carried out the punishments, but what was the reason and who gave the moral obligation to carry it out?
I am sure you can look at the period during the reformation where the CHURCH went about doing many things wrongly. It was due to abuse of those in authority but that doesn’t change the fact that the Church went about doing certain things that were WRONG.

You seem to be under the impression that the Church is infallible even with respect to how it might choose to go about doing somethings. That is FALSE. If that were the case, then one can argue that there is enough evidence that the Roman Catholic church has erred and therefore NOT infallible.

So Tafan, I am afraid you missed my point entirely and seem to be holding an erroneous view of the Church and infallibility as well.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Why yes, it has. Not only allowed but encouraged. See here:

newadvent.org/cathen/04207a.htm

Commenting again only with something new to add which hopefully clears up once and for all the idea that the Church has ever been against those cohabiting correcting their situation through valid marriage.

Bowing out again and not addressing at all the psychology angle which is not relevant.

Ooh yes, what stands contrary to your position obviously must be irrelevant . Seriously 1ke, with all due respect to your knowledge, take a moment and try to be a bit objective here.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe IF the Church held a stricter view for 2000 years on cohabitation/concubinage we wouldn’t be having this problem TODAY??
But wait, psychological and sociological evidence is useless right?

You and Tafan both need to realize the boundary between infallible teachings and suggestions.

Remember the USCCB article that you kept providing? Did you bother to read the part where it said the following?

This paper is neither an official statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family nor of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It does not offer formal recommendations for action. It is intended as a resource paper, offering a **compilation **of **resources **and a **reflection **of the present “state of the question” regarding certain issues of cohabitation.

I bolded the important parts for your convenience.

So 1ke, I am sure you and Tafan have good intentions, but you are really missing the point by defending a “merely suggested practice” as something equivalent to infallible teaching.

God Bless

 

[larsenl1]

okay then all this about marriage and self control and intention, blah blah blah, what about Hosea? His bride was a prostitute and I was taught that this is an example of The Church being faithful to the unfaithful Body of Christ (us). Wouldn’t The Church see this couple in need of grace?

 

[ddarko]

okay then all this about marriage and self control and intention, blah blah blah, what about Hosea? His bride was a prostitute and I was taught that this is an example of The Church being faithful to the unfaithful Body of Christ (us). Wouldn’t The Church see this couple in need of grace?

This doesn’t have anything to do with being unfaithful though???

Unless you are arguing about something new, I don’t think you can equate being unfaithful with cohabitation.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe IF the Church held a stricter view for 2000 years on cohabitation/concubinage we wouldn’t be having this problem TODAY??

What occurs to me is that the Church has had the same position from the beginning-- cohabitation is not an impediment to valid marriage and in fact those cohabiting are encouraged to enter into a valid marriage.

My position is that the Church’s teaching on marriage, understanding of the nature of the sacrament, and instructions on helping cohabiting couples enter into valid marriage are spot on and it is you who is at odds with it.

 

[ddarko]

What occurs to me is that the Church has had the same position from the beginning-- cohabitation is not an impediment to valid marriage and in fact those cohabiting are encouraged to enter into a valid marriage.

My position is that the Church’s **teaching **on marriage, understanding of the nature of the sacrament, and instructions on helping cohabiting couples enter into valid marriage are spot on and it is you who is at odds with it.

You see, **THAT ** (the bolded part in your response above) is where you are wrong. I am 100% with church teaching. BUT, I am against the advised,suggested,reflection based (or what ever you want to call it) method it calls to deal with cohabitation and couples who refuse to separate even after they are told.

Your error, as I have kept saying is that you have some how grouped the ‘**procedure **to handle cohabiting couples’ together with **teachings **on marriage and sacraments. But it is not. Even the USNCCB document states otherwise as you yourself can read in the quote I provided in the previous post.

So it’s two different things. While I am 100% with teaching and always will happily bow to it, I am 100% against the procedure.

God Bless

 

[wynnejj]

What occurs to me is that the Church has had the same position from the beginning-- cohabitation is not an impediment to valid marriage and in fact those cohabiting are encouraged to enter into a valid marriage.

Although I don’t understand it, I’m certainly more comfortable with accepting it, knowing that it has stood the test of time. Thank you. (I’ll be bowing out too, since I’m satisfied that this is not some new policy.)

 

[tafan]

ddarko:

You seem to be under the impression that the Church is infallible even with respect to how it might choose to go about doing somethings. That is FALSE. If that were the case, then one can argue that there is enough evidence that the Roman Catholic church has erred and therefore NOT infallible.

So Tafan, I am afraid you missed my point entirely and seem to be holding an erroneous view of the Church and infallibility as well.

I understand the church’s teaching on infallibility quite well. There are times I am not for sure which teachings are infallible, but I understand the concept.

Your error, as I have kept saying is that you have some how grouped the ‘procedure to handle cohabiting couples’ together with teachings on marriage and sacraments. But it is not. Even the USNCCB document states otherwise as you yourself can read in the quote I provided in the previous post.

I do not think the Church has “procedures”, the Church has laws and teachings. It has been well demonstrated on this thread the Church’s position. I am not for sure why you are so obstinate.

You see, THAT (the bolded part in your response above) is where you are wrong. I am 100% with church teaching. BUT, I am against the advised,suggested,reflection based (or what ever you want to call it) method it calls to deal with cohabitation and couples who refuse to separate even after they are told.

No one has posted any examples of “advised, suggested, reflection based method”, people have posted canons, big difference. The canons are quite clear, you are in the wrong.

You and Tafan both need to realize the boundary between infallible teachings and suggestions

Please provide an example of these “suggestions” that have been used in 1ke’s argument. I admit, I am just riding her coattails, but occasionally an argument goes so clearly in one direction around here, it seems irrefutible.

 

[Vince1022]

T but do you really want to say the Catholic Church has been wrong about something for 2000 years? That is a position that never leads to a good conclusion.

The Church being wrong may not be a good conclusion, but the more important question is truth.

 

[Incomplete]

My pastor gave a sermon that basically said that a couple who were cohabitating had been denied a Catholic marriage in their own parish but out of compassion were permitted marriage in our parish.

My diocese marriage preparation policy statement has this to say about cohabitation:
Couples who are cohabiting should be informed of the theological and sociological reasons that indicate why cohabitation prior to marriage can undermine the future success of their marriage. They are to be strongly encouraged to separate during the remaining period of their engagement. This may not be possible for various reasons. **They then should be encouraged to abstain from sexual relations. Regardless, the Catholic parties should be encouraged to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that they are in the state of grace to receive and confer the Sacrament of Marriage.
**
Is the marriage prep policy in error in suggesting that a couple who refuse to abstain from sexual relations for the duration of their engagement, REGARDLESS, should be encouraged to receive the sacrament of reconciliation? The way the marriage prep policy reads, it sounds like absolution would rubberstamp refusal to abstain from fornication.

I’ve re-read the original post, and am reading this in a different way today, possibly because I know of a similar situation.

In the situation that I know of the first criterion could not be met. In other words, they could not live apart. (I don’t feel free to give details, but suffice to say it wasn’t about refusal to do so.) The priest who married them did ask them to abstain, to live as brother and sister. They agreed to, but in reality had no intent to follow through with that. I don’t know if the pastor suspected they would not follow through or not, All I know is he was right to make the offer, and could not just assume they would lie with no proof.

In reading what the original poster said, the couple would be encouraged to abstain, and REGARDLESS would be encouraged to receive reconciliation. Everyone assumes that means regardless of their answer. It may mean even if they agree to abstain, to stop the sin they are committing, they should still receive the sacrament of reconciliation.

In fact, it makes more sense that way because the statement concludes that the desire is to have them in a state of grace before marriage. If they receive absolution and then go back to what they were doing before they get married, they would not be in a state of grace at the time of the wedding.

 

[Incomplete]

Actually the point was not that God doesn’t want them married. The point was that it is possible that the couple wants to get married while God does not want them to get married. This is why you have discernment.

I am simply saying that a couple who refuses to separate temporarily from cohabitation is giving evidence of lack of ability to judge freely. If the couple is indeed free from some requirement of being together, then they should be able to temporarily separate. Or even the least, abstinence should be possible. If for some reason, a couple states that they can’t abstain from sex for a given period prior to the marriage, that alone is evidence of something very wrong I think.

Now its true that God can bring about good from bad things. The marriage you spoke of is one such example. Now, God can bring about something good from a bad thing like deaths that results in lots of suffering as well. But this does not mean that we should allow death or sick people to die without aid. In the same way, we should not allow abuse of the sacrament of marriage to continue.

God Bless

I would agree with you on your point that if a couple is not free to separate, care should be taken that they are, indeed, free to marry. I also agree that it’s a great big red flag if a couple cannot abstain. As well, I agree that God can bring good from bad things.

What also needs to be addressed, though, is that God may desire some of these marriages, such as the marriage I mentioned. Maybe He just brought about good from it, but maybe it was actually His desire for them to be married. A priest needs to be involved to help discern. I don’t see the policy as the original poster stated it as saying a priest should marry them; rather, that a priest may marry them.

In reality, the cases I know of where couples lived together first and then asked for marriage, the priests involved not only asked them to separate first, but told them in no uncertain terms that they would not marry them while they lived together. In the only case I know of where they could not physically separate, they were told they needed to abstain. The priest should be able to assume the couple is following through on abstaining, but nonetheless should encourage reconciliation, as the policy states.

 

[tafan]

The Church being wrong may not be a good conclusion, but the more important question is truth.

I find the Church the best source of truth. Not for sure what you mean by this post.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I apologize if this has been covered. I scanned the pages and so far didn’t see that addressed, so please excuse any repetition.

At first glance, it could be that the word “Regardless,” is not precisely placed. It’s possible that what ‘regardless’ was intended to refer to was the living in the same location, as opposed to refraining from sex. I deduce that because the previous statements referred to the most desirable, if possible, action, which was to separate physically. (But “regardless,” if they couldn’t/chose not to move apart for practical reasons, such as a signed lease or something extraordinary that theoretically could be allowed – such as a temporary residence because one of them suddenly had to move out of a previous residence unexpectedly, etc.)

I do not necessarily interpert the somewhat-awkwardly worded statement (not as awkward as my above italicized one ) as approval to engage in sex. In any case, for me personally, it is, “regardless,” imprudent to cohabitate when romantic attraction is present & one is unmarried. In addition to the near occasion of sin it also creates tension in the relationship. I actually have an old friend from school who slept next to her fiance; they were both fully dressed and in sleeping bags. I thought that situation was “nuts,” as they say. And in their case there was no urgent (for example, temporary) need to live together. They both had local families with family homes, and one could have lived there until the marriage. They did this for months & months. I would have found that problematic, but maybe that’s just me.

JMO. Your opinions may vary.

 

[ddarko]

I understand the church’s teaching on infallibility quite well. There are times I am not for sure which teachings are infallible, but I understand the concept.

I do not think the Church has “procedures”, the Church has laws and teachings. It has been well demonstrated on this thread the Church’s position. I am not for sure why you are so obstinate.

No one has posted any examples of “advised, suggested, reflection based method”, people have posted canons, big difference. The canons are quite clear, you are in the wrong.

Let me just understand where you are coming from before I go around in circles.

Do the canons say “marry someone who continues cohabitation and refuses to abstain prior to marriage”? NO. It speaks about impediments given the current knowledge at the time of writing. So 1ke instead of looking at what we know now to decide according to the teachings of the canon (it’s basis) wants to just blindly follow the canon. That has no meaning. It is time to realize that marrying couples who refuse to abstain or cohabit before marriage DOES indeed VIOLATE Canons i.e. there is an impediment.

Please provide an example of these “suggestions” that have been used in 1ke’s argument. I admit, I am just riding her coattails, but occasionally an argument goes so clearly in one direction around here, it seems irrefutible.

Certainly odd request. You seem more interested in defending 1ke here than the truth. Nevertheless, her quotes that she presented from the USCCB document as its “official position” has this to say before it even discusses these issues:-

This paper is neither an official statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family nor of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It does not offer formal recommendations for action. It is **intended **as a ****resource ****paper, offering a compilation of resources and a reflection of the present “state of the question” regarding certain issues of cohabitation.

I hope that helps.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I would agree with you on your point that if a couple is not free to separate, care should be taken that they are, indeed, free to marry. I also agree that it’s a great big red flag if a couple cannot abstain. As well, I agree that God can bring good from bad things.

What also needs to be addressed, though, is that God may desire some of these marriages, such as the marriage I mentioned. Maybe He just brought about good from it, but maybe it was actually His desire for them to be married. A priest needs to be involved to help discern. I don’t see the policy as the original poster stated it as saying a priest should marry them; rather, that a priest may marry them.

In reality, the cases I know of where couples lived together first and then asked for marriage, the priests involved not only asked them to separate first, but told them in no uncertain terms that they would not marry them while they lived together. In the only case I know of where they could not physically separate, they were told they needed to abstain. The priest should be able to assume the couple is following through on abstaining, but nonetheless should encourage reconciliation, as the policy states.

I agree with you 100%, this is exactly what I am saying

It should never be a SHOULD as you so rightly put it. In-fact, it has to be a NO MARRIAGE in general, and marriage for such a couple should be the exception.

God Bless

 

[davidv]

Let me just understand where you are coming from before I go around in circles.

Do the canons say “marry someone who continues cohabitation and refuses to abstain prior to marriage”? NO. It speaks about impediments given the current knowledge at the time of writing.

Do any of these impediments include cohabitation?
Do any of the canons state that a priest cannot marry someone who is cohabitating?

So 1ke instead of looking at what we know now to decide according to the teachings of the canon (it’s basis) wants to just blindly follow the canon.

When the canon is silent on this topic how can this be true. The is no rule to “blindly” follow.

That has no meaning. It is time to realize that marrying couples who refuse to abstain or cohabit before marriage DOES indeed VIOLATE Canons i.e. there is an impediment.

How so? Please quote the cannon that states that cohabitation is an impediment.

Certainly odd request. You seem more interested in defending 1ke here than the truth. Nevertheless, her quotes that she presented from the USCCB document as its “official position” has this to say before it even discusses these issues:-

I hope that helps.

God Bless

It would more helpful if you didn’t speculate on the motives of other posters.