Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[wynnejj]

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.

 

[1ke]

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.

What is being conveyed is that the Church wishes to reconcile sinners-- even those who don’t think they are sinning-- and that marriage is the appropriate step to rectify the cohabitation situation.

If they aren’t going to stop having relations, then Reconciliation should be just before the Sacrament of Marriage, and hopefully through the sacramental preparation process the pastor will have helped form their consciences so that by the time they confess they are convicted of all their sins, receive absolution, and are in a state of grace.

 

[wynnejj]

What is being conveyed is that the Church wishes to reconcile sinners-- even those who don’t think they are sinning-- and that marriage is the appropriate step to rectify the cohabitation situation.

Thank you for your answer. It is a good, strong answer but, it still seems inadequate to my way of thinking.

To me, a sacrament means a sacred process which implies that short-circuiting the process is sacrilegious. To compromise the process by allowing marriage with no acknowledgement that pre-marital sex is fornication and a grave sin is to ask for God’s blessing on a marital union REGARDLESS of the couple’s view on fornication. If the marriage is contracted on those terms, is it not both sacrilegious and scandalous?

 

[1ke]

Thank you for your answer. It is a good, strong answer but, it still seems inadequate to my way of thinking.

It is not my answer, it is the Church’s. The Church’s teaching is inadequate to you?

To me, a sacrament means a sacred process which implies that short-circuiting the process is sacrilegious. To compromise the process by allowing marriage with no acknowledgement that pre-marital sex is fornication and a grave sin is to ask for God’s blessing on a marital union REGARDLESS of the couple’s view on fornication.

Fornication has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage.

There is no impediment to marriage created by fornication. You are placing a burden the Church does not.

If the marriage is contracted on those terms, is it not both sacrilegious and scandalous?

Cohabitation is the scandal. Marriage is the remedy.

 

[wynnejj]

It is not my answer, it is the Church’s. The Church’s teaching is inadequate to you?

Yes, if this is the Magisterium of the Church’s teaching then it is an impediment to my beliefs. That is my basic question though. Does my archdiocese’s Marriage Preparation Policy regarding a couple who refuses to abstain from sexual relations - openly and in public - reflect the Magisterium of the Church’s position on requirements that must be met in order to be administered the sacrament of Marriage?

 

[1ke]

Does my archdiocese’s Marriage Preparation Policy regarding a couple who refuses to abstain from sexual relations - openly and in public - reflect the Magisterium of the Church’s position on requirements that must be met in order to be administered the sacrament of Marriage?

Fornication, while grave matter and a sin, is not an impediment to valid marriage. You are trying to establish criteria that the Church herself does not. It’s the pastor’s role to help those who are in such situations move to the sanctity of marriage and regularlize their situation. They should not be denied the sacrament.

See John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris Consortio, particularly paragraph 81:
The pastors and the ecclesial community should take care to become acquainted with such situations and their actual causes, case by case. They should make tactful and respectful contact with the couples concerned and enlighten them patiently, correct them charitably and show them the witness of Christian family life in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation"

But also look at #66 -68, esp:

But pastors must also understand the reasons that lead the Church also to admit to the celebration of marriage those who are imperfectly disposed.

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that these engaged couples, **by virtue of their Baptism, are already really sharers in Christ’s marriage Covenant with the Church, and that, by their right intention, they have accepted God’s plan regarding marriage and therefore at least implicitly consent to what the Church intends to do when she celebrates marriage. **Thus, the fact that motives of a social nature also enter into the request is not enough to justify refusal on the part of pastors.

As for wishing to lay down further criteria for admission to the ecclesial celebration of marriage, criteria that would concern the level of faith of those to be married, this would above all involve grave risks. In the first place, the risk of making unfounded and discriminatory judgments; secondly, the risk of causing doubts about the validity of marriages already celebrated, with grave harm to Christian communities, and new and unjustified anxieties to the consciences of married couples; one would also fall into the danger of calling into question the sacramental nature of many marriages of brethren separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, thus contradicting ecclesial tradition.
See also this USCCB document: nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

Particularly:

If a couple is cohabiting, can marriage be denied or delayed?

Denial of marriage – Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation. Marriage preparation may continue even if the couple refuses to separate. Pastoral ministers can be assured that to assist couples in regularizing their situation is not to approve of cohabitation.

Delay or postponement of the marriage – Some diocesan policies note that in certain circumstances a postponement of the wedding might be in order. In these cases additional time might be needed to address the issues raised by cohabitation. For example, a concern for the impact of cohabitation on the couple’s freedom to marry could be a reason to delay the marriage until this issue is sufficiently explored as part of marriage preparation

Since couples have a natural and canonical right to marriage, any delay beyond the normal waiting period for all couples is a serious matter. Care must be taken to ensure that delay is not used as a punishment for a couple’s continued cohabitation.

 

[wynnejj]

The ambiguity about the profanation of a sacred process is really hard for me to believe is TRUTH.

So, hypothetically, I want to be married in the Catholic Church. My fiancee and I have already set up a household with its now defacto financial responsibilities. We both truly believe in principle that the Catholic church is wrong on any number of issues related to sexual matters. We believe that we have a right to a trial marriage. We will not separate or even consent to abstain from relations for any period of time prior to marriage. Furthermore, we intend to contracept when married. We have been encouraged not to cohabitate and not to fornicate. We publicly renounce both. We believe we are in the right and we deny and defy the teachings of the Catholic Church in these areas on a matter of our principles. We have been encouraged to go to Confession and, we do so and willfully acknowledge to the priest that we have no intention to change. Don’t get me wrong, my fiancee and I are principled and we are acting on our principle, not the Catholic Church’s principles.

Wham, Bam, Thank you Ma’am - I’m married in the Catholic Church. What a beautiful ceremony! Brings a tear to your eye, don’t it? Makes you want to go out and evangelize, don’t it?

How is this different from going to a Justice of the Peace?

 

[Vince1022]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. Check with your bishop.

 

[1ke]

The ambiguity about the profanation of a sacred process is really hard for me to believe is TRUTH.

So, hypothetically, I want to be married in the Catholic Church. My fiancee and I have already set up a household with its now defacto financial responsibilities. We both truly believe in principle that the Catholic church is wrong on any number of issues related to sexual matters. We believe that we have a right to a trial marriage. We will not separate or even consent to abstain from relations for any period of time prior to marriage. Furthermore, we intend to contracept when married. We have been encouraged not to cohabitate and not to fornicate. We publicly renounce both. We believe we are in the right and we deny and defy the teachings of the Catholic Church in these areas on a matter of our principles. We have been encouraged to go to Confession and, we do so and willfully acknowledge to the priest that we have no intention to change. Don’t get me wrong, my fiancee and I are principled and we are acting on our principle, not the Catholic Church’s principles.

Wham, Bam, Thank you Ma’am - I’m married in the Catholic Church. What a beautiful ceremony! Brings a tear to your eye, don’t it? Makes you want to go out and evangelize, don’t it?

How is this different from going to a Justice of the Peace?

Did you **read **Familiaris Consortio?

 

[wynnejj]

Did you **read **Familiaris Consortio?

No, I have not read the document in its entirety. It is a daunting task. I have read about 1/3 of it so far. I intend to read it three times, as an instructor once told me that one cannot generally feel they’ve studied a document unless they’ve read it three times.

Your question implies that you have read it and understand it. Your question implies that something that I’ve described in the lead-up to “How does this differ from going to a Justice of the Peace?” is misrepresenting how a marriage preparation policy might be legitimately played out in the Catholic church conforming to the guidelines of the Majesterium. Are you saying that I am somehow misrepresenting JPII’s exhortation, or the Majesterium in general, in some way?

 

[1ke]

No, I have not read the document in its entirety. It is a daunting task. I have read about 1/3 of it so far. I intend to read it three times, as an instructor once told me that one cannot generally feel they’ve studied a document unless they’ve read it three times.

Your question implies that you have read it and understand it. Your question implies that something that I’ve described in the lead-up to “How does this differ from going to a Justice of the Peace?” is misrepresenting how a marriage preparation policy might be legitimately played out in the Catholic church conforming to the guidelines of the Majesterium.

Read what JPII says:

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that these engaged couples, by virtue of their Baptism, are already really sharers in Christ’s marriage Covenant with the Church, and that, by their right intention, they have accepted God’s plan regarding marriage and therefore at least implicitly consent to what the Church intends to do when she celebrates marriage. Thus, the fact that motives of a social nature also enter into the request is not enough to justify refusal on the part of pastors.

Are you saying that I am somehow misrepresenting JPII’s exhortation, or the Majesterium in general, in some way?

I think you need to review the Church’s teaching on the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of marriage.

It is the *couple *who confer the sacrament upon each other by their exchange of consent/vows. The priest is the *witness *for the Church (Latin Rite), and form applies *only *to Catholics (and it can, of course, be dispensed even for Catholics in a mixed marriage situation).

Baptized non-Catholics confer the sacrament upon each other when they marry, even at the Justice of the Peace. Marriage between the baptized is *by its nature *a sacrament (Canon 1055).

Therefore, I’m saying that there is **no **difference. Form is an ecclesial requirement, not a divine law requirement. Catholic form is not what makes marriage a sacrament.

 

[Vince1022]

Catholic form is not what makes marriage a sacrament.

Right. Good point. Just to be clear, Catholics who marry without following Catholic form do not have a sacramental marriage.

 

[wynnejj]

I think you need to review the Church’s teaching on the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of marriage.

I think you are right. Thanks for hanging in there with me, 1ke. I can’t say that I’m comfortable with all that I’m hearing, but I’m a little less uncomfortable.

 

[TimothyH]

Cohabitation is the scandal. Marriage is the remedy.

Be careful here.

I understand the sense of what you are saying in the context of the original question posed but we have to be careful that we don’t teach marriage as a remedy for concupiscence or lack of self control. A man or woman who lacks a basic ability to control themself outside of marriage is not likely to be able to do so within marriage and so is probably not the best candidate to marry in the first place.

The real challenge, especially in today’s contraceptive fueled hedonistic pornographic culture, is to get the couple to realize the real meaning of love as “gift of self” and how to respect the dignity of the other through self control - not cohabitating in the first place.

Some will say that I’m being old fashioned and I’ll probably set off a firestorm because I dared use the “C” word but Christ didn’t come to give us coping mechanisms and if anyone is going to change society, the most likely candidate is Jesus Christ through his Holy Church.

-Tim-

 

[wynnejj]

Some will say that I’m being old fashioned and I’ll probably set off a firestorm because I dared use the “C” word but Christ didn’t come to give us coping mechanisms and if anyone is going to change society, the most likely candidate is Jesus Christ through his Holy Church.

I’m getting dizzy with the confusion about what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church and with the differences of opinions between parish priests and archdiocesan policies. I get the feeling that the old-fashioned Jesus has been supplanted by a new age, “Sheezus” - the compromising, politically correct, emasculated, consensus-seeking, sexy, secular humanist deity. Things aren’t black and white. They are grey (for “not everything is black and white”) and pink (for “all you need is love”). That truth with time changes with the circumstances and the cultural climate.

Cohabitation IS a scandal if there is an air of “We’re going to do what we like and, what are you going to do about it?”. All my nephews and nieces are dropping out of the Church like flies when they graduate and I think it is because the Church is a hybrid between God’s word and the secular world. It is irreverent and irrelevant.

 

[tafan]

I’m getting dizzy with the confusion about what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church and with the differences of opinions between parish priests and archdiocesan policies. I get the feeling that the old-fashioned Jesus has been supplanted by a new age, “Sheezus” - the compromising, politically correct, emasculated, consensus-seeking, sexy, secular humanist deity. Things aren’t black and white. They are grey (for “not everything is black and white”) and pink (for “all you need is love”). That truth with time changes with the circumstances and the cultural climate.

Cohabitation IS a scandal if there is an air of “We’re going to do what we like and, what are you going to do about it?”. All my nephews and nieces are dropping out of the Church like flies when they graduate and I think it is because the Church is a hybrid between God’s word and the secular world. It is irreverent and irrelevant.

Well, I do think the wording in your original post of the Diocesan marriage prep statement is a little off, but the intent seems correct. First of all, everyone should be encouraged to go to confession, even if the sin is habitual or reoccuring. Many people who have habitual sins are truly sorry and trying not to committ them again at the time of confession. Others, say in the case of ongoing cohabitation, may be in a difficult situation that they cannot immediately get out of. They are left in a near occastion of sin. They should be encouraged to try to abstain and seek reconciliation. Obviously they should be encouraged to be properly married, as that can be a wonderful solution to the problem. Like I say, maybe the wording is not clear, but the intent seems very sound to me.

Yes the sin of cohabitation is a scandal, that doesn’t mean by working through the sin means Jesus has been emasculated. Jesus came for sinners. Conversion is often a long-process, no it is always a life-long process for all of us. Conversion is often a 2 steps forward, 1 step back thing. Thats why Jesus left us the sacraments, to help us on the way with his power to overcome sin. Just the opposite of Him being emasculated.

While I will admit some parishes and pastors are off-base on some things, perhaps the problem is not as bad as you think and you are spending too much time looking for problems. I would never comment on a pastor’s decision to marry someone unless I knew a whole lot about the case. If your pastor thought the couple had been denied a marriage improperly, then he was rectifying the problem by marrying them. Give him the benefit of the doubt and rejoice that in that case, the scandal of cohabitation is coming to an end!!

 

[bookgirl32]

Read what JPII says:

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that these engaged couples, by virtue of their Baptism, are already really sharers in Christ’s marriage Covenant with the Church, and that, by their right intention, they have accepted God’s plan regarding marriage and therefore at least implicitly consent to what the Church intends to do when she celebrates marriage. Thus, the fact that motives of a social nature also enter into the request is not enough to justify refusal on the part of pastors.

I think you need to review the Church’s teaching on the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of marriage.

It is the *couple *who confer the sacrament upon each other by their exchange of consent/vows. The priest is the *witness *for the Church (Latin Rite), and form applies *only *to Catholics (and it can, of course, be dispensed even for Catholics in a mixed marriage situation).

Baptized non-Catholics confer the sacrament upon each other when they marry, even at the Justice of the Peace. Marriage between the baptized is *by its nature *a sacrament (Canon 1055).

Therefore, I’m saying that there is **no **difference. Form is an ecclesial requirement, not a divine law requirement. Catholic form is not what makes marriage a sacrament.

 

[bookgirl32]

Um, yeah, ignore that posted quote. I was only reading here, don’t know how I managed to do that. Mods if you see it please delete it. Thanks.

 

[1ke]

Be careful here.

I understand the sense of what you are saying in the context of the original question posed but we have to be careful that we don’t teach marriage as a remedy for concupiscence or lack of self control.

I didn’t say marriage was a remendy for *concupiscence *(although it can be argued that St. Paul held this position in 1 Cor 7:9), I said it remedied the scandal.

The real challenge, especially in today’s contraceptive fueled hedonistic pornographic culture, is to get the couple to realize the real meaning of love as “gift of self” and how to respect the dignity of the other through self control - not cohabitating in the first place.

Certainly. But, the fact remains that if the couple continues to cohabit, that in itself is not an impediment to valid marriage.

Some will say that I’m being old fashioned and I’ll probably set off a firestorm because I dared use the “C” word

Huh?

 

[1ke]

I think you are right. Thanks for hanging in there with me, 1ke. I can’t say that I’m comfortable with all that I’m hearing, but I’m a little less uncomfortable.

Good, I’m glad.

Remember, marriage is a sacrament and the purpose of all sacraments is to give santifying grace. These confused and misguided couples greatly need God’s grace.