Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[ddarko]

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.

I read through your posts. But I am a bit confused here.

Doesn’t sacrament of reconciliation require repentance? So if at no point does a couple acknowledge that pre-marital sex was wrong, then they cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation. Your sins are not forgiven if you do not want to sincerely repent, do penance and amend your life.

While sacraments give us grace, we must be predisposed to receive them as well. For an example, if you commit a mortal sin, you cannot receive Holy communion. Similarly, I don’t think you can receive sacrament of marriage if you sleep together without repentance for it.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, cohabitation before marriage could actually be grounds for an annulment i.e. no sacramental marriage took place.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

I read through your posts. But I am a bit confused here.

Doesn’t sacrament of reconciliation require repentance? So if at no point does a couple acknowledge that pre-marital sex was wrong, then they cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation. Your sins are not forgiven if you do not want to sincerely repent, do penance and amend your life.

Their malformed conscience could certainly impact their ability to make a good confession but it can also lessen their culpability. Their priest will guide them in the matter.

While sacraments give us grace, we must be predisposed to receive them as well. For an example, if you commit a mortal sin, you cannot receive Holy communion.

If they are truly not in a state of grace when they enter marriage, they will not receive sanctifying grace but they will receive actual grace. Hopefully that actual grace will help them move towards repentance for past sins and allow the sanctifying grace of the sacrament to flow.

Similarly, I don’t think you can receive sacrament of marriage if you sleep together without repentance for it.

A valid marriage is a sacrament by its nature between two baptized persons-- for example two protestants who have no access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation contract marriage validly and it is a sacrament.

A valid marriage requires no divine law or ecclesial impediments, valid consent, and valid form (for Catholics). Fornication is not an impediment to valid marriage (note, I am in no way saying fornication is a good idea nor am I proposing that it does no harm. I am only stating that it isn’t an impediment to valid marriage).

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, cohabitation before marriage could actually be grounds for an annulment i.e. no sacramental marriage took place.

That is not correct. Fornication is neither an impediment to a valid marriage nor grounds for nullity.

 

[ddarko]

Their malformed conscience could certainly impact their ability to make a good confession but it can also lessen their culpability. Their priest will guide them in the matter.

I am not sure you are correct on this matter. This is like saying I can murder someone, just get a confession without repentance and my sins will be forgiven?

If they are truly not in a state of grace when they enter marriage, they will not receive sanctifying grace but they will receive actual grace. Hopefully that actual grace will help them move towards repentance for past sins and allow the sanctifying grace of the sacrament to flow.

This I can see as possible.

But, it is part of the church to determine whether the couple has been called to the vocation of marriage. If the persons are cohabiting before marriage, I don’t think the church can participate in the marriage i.e. The church should not witness the marriage.

A valid marriage is a sacrament by its nature between two baptized persons-- for example two protestants who have no access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation contract marriage validly and it is a sacrament.

A valid marriage requires no divine law or ecclesial impediments, valid consent, and valid form (for Catholics). Fornication is not an impediment to valid marriage (note, I am in no way saying fornication is a good idea nor am I proposing that it does no harm. I am only stating that it isn’t an impediment to valid marriage).

I think while it is no impediment to marriage, that is not the only thing we are arguing here. I am saying these two people SHOULD not be married with the Church as witness since the Church cannot deem the couple as being called to marriage. The Church DOES have responsibility to properly decide whether two people are called to marriage or if there judgment is clouded (by things like cohabiting before marriage)

That is not correct. Fornication is neither an impediment to a valid marriage nor grounds for nullity.

Yes, I think you might have misunderstood me. What I am saying is not merely that it is an impediment. I am actually saying that cohabitation before marriage clouds the judgment of the couple and they cannot determine therefore if they are called to marriage or even marry each other. Therefore, the Church cannot (and correctly should not) witness such a marriage.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

I am not sure you are correct on this matter. This is like saying I can murder someone, just get a confession without repentance and my sins will be forgiven?

No, that is not what I said at all.

If the persons are cohabiting before marriage, I don’t think the church can participate in the marriage i.e. The church should not witness the marriage.

The Church disagrees with you. See the documents I referred to and linked to above.

I think while it is no impediment to marriage, that is not the only thing we are arguing here. I am saying these two people SHOULD not be married with the Church as witness since the Church cannot deem the couple as being called to marriage.

And again, this is NOT the teaching of the Church. See the references above.

The Church DOES have responsibility to properly decide whether two people are called to marriage or if there judgment is clouded (by things like cohabiting before marriage)

The priest, in helping the couple discern, could certainly delay the celebration of marriage if he had grave reservations about their ability to give valid consent. This is rare, but it happens. He should not deny the sacrament to them, as per the documents I have already linked to.

I am actually saying that cohabitation before marriage clouds the judgment of the couple and they cannot determine therefore if they are called to marriage or even marry each other. Therefore, the Church cannot (and correctly should not) witness such a marriage.

That is not the position of the Church.

 

[ddarko]

No, that is not what I said at all.

The Church disagrees with you. See the documents I referred to and linked to above.

And again, this is NOT the teaching of the Church. See the references above.

The priest, in helping the couple discern, could certainly delay the celebration of marriage if he had grave reservations about their ability to give valid consent. This is rare, but it happens. He should not deny the sacrament to them, as per the documents I have already linked to.

That is not the position of the Church.

I am afraid you might be reading too much in to one church document to the exclusion of others.

The church DOES have an obligation to decide if a vocation fits a person whether it is a call to Marriage OR Priesthood.

While you are certainly correct in asserting that there is no impediment to applying marriage (and I totally agree with you), there is however grounds for a church to refuse to marry two people who continue to cohabit. Two people who cohabit do have clouded judgment on their vocation. This is actually **one **of the reasons why the Church is against cohabitation before marriage.

God Bless

 

[tafan]

Turning into a more interesting thread than I expected.

ddarko:

The church DOES have an obligation to decide if a vocation fits a person whether it is a call to Marriage OR Priesthood.

I would agree with the Priesthood, but is this actually the case with marriage? Maybe its the case with all sacraments, but I don’t think so. I think the church has to err on the side of providing the sacraments and we as individuals are much more obligated to decide on the reception of them. But I would be interested in references or canons that would say otherwise.

I find it interesting that even with extreme youth, canon 1072 only says that pastors are to disuade the youth, it does not say bar. A quick review of the canons would says nothing about cohabitation. Certainly it was alread a widespread problem throughout Europe and the US when this version of canon law was written, yet it does not mention it. It seems, in general, the Church is pretty precise when sacraments are not to be received, so the lack of mention would appear to be telling.

I find it very wise that priests would tell cohabitating couples to move apart for a period before the marraige, during preparation. I do not think they should at all bar the marriage from occurring. Once again, it seems like marriage is a valid solution to the problem in many cases.

A couple of the posts on this thread seem to indicate that a couple has to fully embrace all of the teachings of the church before marriage, I don’t think this is right. Are we perphaps discounting the efficacy of the grace of the sacrament.

 

[1ke]

I am afraid you might be reading too much in to one church document to the exclusion of others.

Not just one document. There are many. I would also suggest the document Marriage, Family, and De Facto Unions.

The church DOES have an obligation to decide if a vocation fits a person whether it is a call to Marriage OR Priesthood.

That is a misrepresentation of the role of the Church in discerning the vocation to marriage. Please povide a Church document that says the Church decides if a person has a vocation to marriage or not. This is nowhere specified in the Canons on marriage, nor is it the teaching in the Catechism on the sacrament of marriage.

It is the couple who discerns this. The Church helps them, but if they are able to give valid consent, have no impediments (divine law or ecclesial law) and follow Catholic form (or receive dispensation from it) they have a right to the sacrament.

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

While you are certainly correct in asserting that there is no impediment to applying marriage (and I totally agree with you), there is however grounds for a church to refuse to marry two people who continue to cohabit. Two people who cohabit do have clouded judgment on their vocation. This is actually **one **of the reasons why the Church is against cohabitation before marriage.

God Bless

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

If they have asked for marriage, are prepared to give valid consent, and have no impediments by law they are to receive the sacraments. Cohabitation is NOT an impediment.

 

[tafan]

Thanks for the references 1ke. That makes a lot of sense to me and the other point did not seem to pass the “sniff” test.

 

[ddarko]

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

If they have asked for marriage, are prepared to give valid consent, and have no impediments by law they are to receive the sacraments. Cohabitation is NOT an impediment.

I bolded the key word above that I’ve been stressing, Properly Disposed. I do not think a cohabiting couple can know whether they are properly disposed to marriage OR discern properly.

Before you try to argue with me on this point, make sure you have some good psychological evidence to back it up. Because if I may remind you, you are not treading on canonical or theological matters here. You basically have to tell me HOW a cohabiting couple can make a sounds judgement on discernment.

Let me also remind you about the tons of annulment cases that get passed based on the fact that couple was cohabiting before the marriage and their judgement was clouded.

I really don’t see how hard this is for you. Cohabitation clouds judgement, do you agree or disagree? If you do agree, then what the big deal?

Just to give you an analogy, why do you think underage Catholics are not allowed marriage?

Do you want someone who is not meant for the priesthood to be ordained a priest and see him leave?

Or do you want to see a couple that is not called to marry each other (or to not marry at all) get married and then end up in divorce?

God Bless

 

[1ke]

I bolded the key word above that I’ve been stressing, Properly Disposed. I do not think a cohabiting couple can know whether they are properly disposed to marriage OR discern properly.

The OP’s bishop, the US Conference of Bishops, John Paul II, and other vatican document authors have indicated that they are-- since they’ve stated the sacrament should not be denied based solely on cohabitation.

Before you try to argue with me on this point, make sure you have some good psychological evidence to back it up. Because if I may remind you, you are not treading on canonical or theological matters here. You basically have to tell me HOW a cohabiting couple can make a sounds judgement on discernment.

It is not incubment upon **me **to prove anything to you, as the **Bishops **have spoken on this matter, at least in the US, and the OP’s bishops has specifically given guidance that they are, in general, properly disposed. It is the priest’s place to work with the couple to determine if there are any impediments to valid marriage, in which case the sacrament can be delayed, not denied.

Again, you are attempting to place a burden on the couple that the Church does not. Disposed in this context does not mean psychologically, financially, or any other thing, it means they can give valid consent and have no impediments to valid marriage.

Let me also remind you about the tons of annulment cases that get passed based on the fact that couple was cohabiting before the marriage.

Can you back that up with some facts? Show me the canon in canon law. Because cohabitation is not per se grounds for a decree of nullity, and the Church marries those cohabiting and it could not do so if it were a de facto impediment to valid marriage.

I really don’t see how hard this is for you. Cohabitation clouds judgement, do you agree or disagree? If you do agree, then what the big deal?

lots of things “cloud judgment.” Being “in love” clouds judgment. Being 18 clouds judgment (oh, but wait, the canonical age of consent is completion of 14th year for girls and 16th for boys). Having a mom that is concerned you won’t get married before you turn 30 clouds judgment.

None of them are, necessarily, impediments to valid marriage. And, no I do not agree that cohabiting per se clouds judgment. Certainly it might in individual cases.

Do you want someone who is not meant for the priesthood to be ordained a priest and see him leave?

It happens. The discernment process is there to help them, as is the discernment process during premarital preparation.

Or do you want to see a couple that is not called to marry each other (or to not marry at all) get married and then end up in divorce?

Cohabitation does not equal “not meant to marry each other.”

In light of the Bishops not putting this barrier in place, in light of the Pope not putting this barrier in place, in light of you being neither a Bishop nor a Pope, I’ll stick with the bishop and the pope.

Thank you, our conversation with each other is at an end.

 

[ddarko]

The OP’s bishop, the US Conference of Bishops, John Paul II, and other vatican document authors have indicated that they are-- since they’ve stated the sacrament should not be denied based solely on cohabitation.

It is not incubment upon **me **to prove anything to you, as the **Bishops **have spoken on this matter, at least in the US, and the OP’s bishops has specifically given guidance that they are, in general, properly disposed. It is the priest’s place to work with the couple to determine if there are any impediments to valid marriage, in which case the sacrament can be delayed, not denied.

Again, you are attempting to place a burden on the couple that the Church does not. Disposed in this context does not mean psychologically, financially, or any other thing, it means they can give valid consent and have no impediments to valid marriage.

Can you back that up with some facts? Show me the canon in canon law. Because cohabitation is not per se grounds for a decree of nullity, and the Church marries those cohabiting and it could not do so if it were a de facto impediment to valid marriage.

lots of things “cloud judgment.” Being “in love” clouds judgment. Being 18 clouds judgment (oh, but wait, the canonical age of consent is completion of 14th year for girls and 16th for boys). Having a mom that is concerned you won’t get married before you turn 30 clouds judgment.

None of them are, necessarily, impediments to valid marriage. And, no I do not agree that cohabiting per se clouds judgment. Certainly it might in individual cases.

It happens. The discernment process is there to help them, as is the discernment process during premarital preparation.

Cohabitation does not equal “not meant to marry each other.”

In light of the Bishops not putting this barrier in place, in light of the Pope not putting this barrier in place, in light of you being neither a Bishop nor a Pope, I’ll stick with the bishop and the pope.

Thank you, our conversation with each other is at an end.

Alright, no need to be so condescending. I am Catholic too. You act like I am out to GET YOU

So, I see your point and that of the Church. But from a practical standpoint, I am not sure what it means.

It is one thing to say allow cohabiting couples to marry EVEN when they refuse to separate before marriage while saying cohabiting couples may marry if they choose to recognize their errors.

I really think it adds more to the view that the Church is ok with Cohabitation than it opposes the view.

I also did see somewhere that a couple living a sinful life (like premarital sex before marriage) is grounds for annulment. The point is not that cohabitation GIVES you the annulment but it gives you GROUNDS to say that your discernment was clouded so therefore grant an annulment. I will try to find the source. Now if I was wrong, good to know.

But I am really not sure how you can say that there is a proper discernment process when the couple is living together and having sex. They are obviously pre-disposed to say that they would want to live together. Your insistence that it does not cloud judgement is what strikes me as insincerity on your part.

And yes, this “being in love” (which is usually when a person is passionately involved) DOES cloud judgement. And your mom wanting you to get married before 30 or you being in agitation that you are not married and over 30 can also lead to clouded judgement. Proper discernment procedure is therefore required. In the case of a cohabiting couple, this proper discernment must involve separation OR at least abstinence.

Now all this might be because I am from a country where Cohabitation is a rarity and frowned upon and no-one would even think twice of even asking for a marriage while living together. But anyway, that is how it appears to me and I can totally relate to the OP’s sentiments.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

Alright, no need to be so condescending. I am Catholic too. You act like I am out to GET YOU

So, I see your point and that of the Church. But from a practical standpoint, I am not sure what it means.

Respoding, since you asked… No, I don’t believe you are out to get me. I believe you are seeing things wrongly. It seems you view withholding the sacrament as a punitive measure and the Church does not see it that way. There are minimum standards for receiving the various sacraments, and if they are met they are not to be withheld.

It is one thing to say allow cohabiting couples to marry EVEN when they refuse to separate before marriage while saying cohabiting couples may marry if they choose to recognize their errors.

Punitive.

I really think it adds more to the view that the Church is ok with Cohabitation than it opposes the view.

Go read Marriage, Family, and De Facto Unions. The Church is NO WAY is “ok” with cohabitation. When one seeks to move from cohabitation into a valid, lifelong union the Church is ready to assist.

I also did see somewhere that a couple living a sinful life (like premarital sex before marriage) is grounds for annulment.

This isn’t true.

The point is not that cohabitation GIVES you the annulment but it gives you GROUNDS to say that your discernment was clouded so therefore grant an annulment. I will try to find the source. Now if I was wrong, good to know.

This also isn’t true. Not from any source I’ve read nor from the class given by our tribunal office.

There certainly are *individual circumstances *where this could be true-- and the priest is to try to discern this before marriage.

But I am really not sure how you can say that there is a proper discernment process when the couple is living together and having sex. They are obviously pre-disposed to say that they would want to live together. Your insistence that it does not cloud judgement is what strikes me as insincerity on your part.

I’m not being insincere. Cohabitation does not per se cloud judgment. I said it might in individual cases. Many, many couples are having sexual relations before marriage, even if they have separate addresses. The Church has not ever placed fornication as an impediment to valid marriage.

“Clouded judgment” what does that mean, anyway?

And yes, this “being in love” (which is usually when a person is passionately involved) DOES cloud judgement. And your mom wanting you to get married before 30 or you being in agitation that you are not married and over 30 can also lead to clouded judgement. Proper discernment procedure is therefore required. In the case of a cohabiting couple, this proper discernment must involve separation OR at least abstinence.

Clouded judgment does NOT incapacitate an individual with regard to valid consent.

Now all this might be because I am from a country where Cohabitation is a rarity and frowned upon and no-one would even think twice of even asking for a marriage while living together. But anyway, that is how it appears to me and I can totally relate to the OP’s sentiments.

That’s a good thing.

 

[wynnejj]

If the sacrament of marriage can be conferred with actual grace by the very act of two baptized couples making the proper marital vows with the appropriate witness, why can’t pastors be instructed by their archdiocese to simply state that since the sacrament of marriage can be conferred virtually anywhere, therefore, if the couple insist on making a public show of cohabitation without a special dispensation of the archbishop for special circumstances, then the parish must insist that they get “the form” of their marriage elsewhere.

Ever read “Acts of the Apostles” chapter 5 about Ananias and Sapphira. There’s a principle being taught there that seems to have a parallel application to what we are talking about here.

 

[1ke]

If the sacrament of marriage can be conferred with actual grace by the very act of two baptized couples making the proper marital vows with the appropriate witness, why can’t pastors be instructed by their archdiocese to simply state that since the sacrament of marriage can be conferred virtually anywhere, therefore, if the couple insist on making a public show of cohabitation without a special dispensation of the archbishop for special circumstances, then the parish must insist that they get “the form” of their marriage elsewhere.

Honestly, I don’t think it is profitable to keep discussing this here. I don’t think you have a good grasp on the Catholic Church teaching on marriage, the canon law requirements, etc.

Catholics are required to marry in Catholic form, fulfilling all canon law requirments and exchanging their vows/consent before a priest and two witnesses. They canno “go elsewhere.” Nor is that the proper response from the Church to a Catholic requesting the sacraments. Do we tell people to “go elsewhere” for baptism? Eucharist? Confession? OF COURSE NOT. Because, as Peter said, “to whom should we go?” The Church administers the sacraments and the pastors give spiritual care to their flocks.

It is just shocking that you would suggest people “go elsewhere.” There is no “elsewhere”.

Maybe you should sit down with your priest and talk with him about it. He can explain what he announced from the pulpit in greater detail to you.

Ever read “Acts of the Apostles” chapter 5 about Ananias and Sapphira. There’s a principle being taught there that seems to have a parallel application to what we are talking about here.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is in no way relevant to the situation of a couple seeking marriage, cohabiting, fornicating, or not.

 

[wynnejj]

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is in no way relevant to the situation of a couple seeking marriage, cohabiting, fornicating, or not.

The footnote in my NAB says:
The sin of Ananias and Sapphira did not consist in the withholding of part of the money, but in the deception of the community. Their deaths are ascribed to a lie to the Holy Spirit (that is, the accepted the honor accorded them by the community for their generosity, when they were not deserving of it.).

It seems to me that those who seek the HONOR of a big ceremony Catholic Marriage but withhold the goods of accepting that sex is valid only within the confines of proper marriage contract with God - in principle - are lying to the Holy Spirit. Especially when you can receive the sacrament with its actual grace in another venue where you can marry with INTEGRITY.

 

[1ke]

It seems to me that those who seek the HONOR of a big ceremony Catholic Marriage

I don’t think you have the right notion of Catholic marriage and are ascribing motives to people.

but withhold the goods of accepting that sex is valid only within the confines of proper marriage contract with God - in principle - are lying to the Holy Spirit.

They aren’t lieing to anyone. They may be wrong, but they aren’t being purposely deceptive.

Especially when you can receive the sacrament with its actual grace in another venue where you can marry with INTEGRITY.

You keep saying this. But a Catholic cannot go elsewhere and validly marry. What part of Catholics must marry in Catholic form do you not understand?

A Catholic marrying a non-Catholic can receive a *dispensation *from form for the purpose of marrying in the non-Catholic’s place of worship on an exceptional basis when circumstance warrant it.

**Two Catholics marrying each other **cannot be dispensed from Catholic form.

 

[ddarko]

I’m not being insincere. Cohabitation does not per se cloud judgment. I said it might in individual cases. Many, many couples are having sexual relations before marriage, even if they have separate addresses. The Church has not ever placed fornication as an impediment to valid marriage.

“Clouded judgment” what does that mean, anyway?

Clouding judgment as in no free will.

Let me give you an example, if the person was to put a gun to the head and told to marry, that does not count if they do marry. If a person was intoxicated during the marriage, does it count as VALID?

Similarly, having sex and being together DOES make one feel like they belong together. Psychological studies have shown that such strong feelings can last up to 3 to 4 years (which btw is when the marriage and annulment rates spike). In the end, it was just the hormones talking and this is not some exceptional case in cohabitation that I am referring to.

So that is what I mean by clouded judgment.

Now do you still think its ok to let two cohabiting people WHO REFUSE to abstain or part, be allowed to marry?

God Bless

 

[Pug]

**Two Catholics marrying each other **cannot be dispensed from Catholic form.

I know it is off your point, but do you mean the local ordinary can’t or do you mean can’t can’t? I thought the apostolic see could.

Of course, one is not required to meet the standard form in situations where persecution prevents, etc. I don’t mean that stuff.

 

[1ke]

I know it is off your point, but do you mean the local ordinary can’t or do you mean can’t can’t? I thought the apostolic see could.

Of course, one is not required to meet the standard form in situations where persecution prevents, etc. I don’t mean that stuff.

Nothing in the canons state that Catholic form can be dispensed for two Catholics.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM

By virtue of their office the bishop and pastor can preside. Another priest or deacon can be delegated to be the witness for the Church. In situations where there is no possibility of a priest or deacon witnessing the marriage (i.e., mission territories, etc) then the bishop can delegate a Catholic lay person with permission of the Holy See. But this is still Catholic form. The lay person is then the witness for the Church and receives the vows/witnesses the consent. This is not the same as dispensing from form.

 

[1ke]

Clouding judgment as in no free will.

Absolutely not.

Let me give you an example, if the person was to put a gun to the head and told to marry, that does not count if they do marry. If a person was intoxicated during the marriage, does it count as VALID?

Correct. Compulsion could invalidate marriage, however the couple can give new consent of the will in the internal forum making their marriage valid.

Similarly, having sex and being together DOES make one feel like they belong together. Psychological studies have shown that such strong feelings can last up to 3 to 4 years (which btw is when the marriage and annulment rates spike). In the end, it was just the hormones talking and this is not some exceptional case in cohabitation that I am referring to.

You are WAY overreaching. Cohabiting **might **do this in individual cases-- which I’ve said repeatedly-- and the priest would determine this BEFORE the marriage and delay the sacrament until he could ascertain that valid consent could be received.

Cohabiting does not PER SE constitute any sort of compulsion or inability to give valid consent. The Church has obviously determined it does not because it is NOT an impediment to valid marriage.

Now do you still think its ok to let two cohabiting people WHO REFUSE to abstain or part, be allowed to marry?

Yes, and so does the church.