Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[Incomplete]

While 1ke is good with the facts (thank you) I want to share a little bit of personal opinion.

When 2 people are living together or even living apart and having a sexual relationship before marriage, we cannot assume that the only possibility is that their judgment is clouded when they seek marriage. It is very possible that God is calling them together in that special way. Many, many good Christian people have lost the idea that sex before marriage is a sin. While that is a very sad thing, it doesn’t mean that God wants none of them to be married to each other.

We can’t assume we know God’s desire for a couple. Their wish to marry may well be a sign of God working in them.

I know of a couple who lived together a few years before marriage. They married and never thought twice about it. But one of them grew in faith, eventually realizing how wrong it was. That party repented and confessed.

In the same way God worked in this marriage over the years, He may have been working in both when they felt the pull towards marriage. A priest can and should help with discernment, but we can’t automatically assume that because a couple is living in sin, God doesn’t want them married.

I think the Church is wise to try to discern in each case, just as the Church does in cases without premarital sex or cohabitation.

 

[ddarko]

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.

Ok so this is where I disagree.

From my knowledge on Psychology, what I said is NOT the exception for some individual cases. It is actually the NORM. What you are saying is infact the exception when it comes to marriage.

And really, I do not see the logic with which you argue that it does not lend someone to want to marry when they are cohabiting. Here you have two people, who engage in sex and possibly even share other benefits and finances. You are telling me that both of them, who are also disagreeing to even separate or abstain, do not have any inclination or need to say YES more than NO when it comes to them being together. Like please explain to me how you reconcile this logically as being free from any burden to freely decide.

I for one do not see any way to reconcile the two things.

God Bless

 

[wynnejj]

Catholics are required to marry in Catholic form, fulfilling all canon law requirements and exchanging their vows/consent before a priest and two witnesses. They cannot “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”.

So there is something very special and sacred about a Catholic marriage that you can get nowhere else. Hmmm, so how does one NOT SHOCK THE YOUNG FAMILY MEMBERS of our extended family into thinking that our cohabiting family member about to be married in the Catholic Church is not receiving a defacto blessing by the church for his cohabiting practices. How about a PG-13, must be accompanied by a traditionalist priest?

There is a joke about onlookers witnessing a couple in a public display of affection where the comment is “Get a Room, will you!”. How about a very private ceremony with minimal witnesses with the complete Catholic form?

God bless you, 1ke, for putting up with my impertinence of questioning our church leaders but, c’mon now… Doesn’t this make just a little common sense?

 

[ddarko]

In the same way God worked in this marriage over the years, He may have been working in both when they felt the pull towards marriage. A priest can and should help with discernment, but we can’t automatically assume that because a couple is living in sin, God doesn’t want them married.

I think the Church is wise to try to discern in each case, just as the Church does in cases without premarital sex or cohabitation.

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

 

[1ke]

From my knowledge on Psychology, what I said is NOT the exception for some individual cases. It is actually the NORM. What you are saying is infact the exception when it comes to marriage.

You do not have a good understanding of the Church’s requirement to contract a valid marriage.

You must not exclude by a postive act of your will the three essential properties of marriage: fecundy, fidelity, and perpetuity. If the couple exchanges vows, their internal disposition is presumed to correspond to their external words. IOW, the priest will have discussed the essential properties of marriage and if they do not exclude any of these, they can validly marry.

In order to render marriage invalid, they would have to intend at the time they exchange vows not to be faithful, not to have ever have children, or not believe marriage is for life. The priest goes over this before the marriage goes forward.

Remember, the Church deemed valid even a marriage between two people who’d never even met each other. Arranged marriages were the norm until very recently. If both people had proper intent and gave valid consent-- the were validly married.

And really, I do not see the logic with which you argue that it does not lend someone to want to marry when they are cohabiting. Here you have two people, who engage in sex and possibly even share other benefits and finances. You are telling me that both of them, who are also disagreeing to even separate or abstain, do not have any inclination or need to say YES more than NO when it comes to them being together. Like please explain to me how you reconcile this logically as being free from any burden to freely decide.

Your idea of what it takes to form valid consent or be free to marry is grossly skewed.

I don’t know how I can explain it any plainer than I have. You have convinced yourself that these people have psychological barriers that invalidate consent/intent.

How about people with *actual *mental illnesses? The Church allows *them *to marry, provided they can form valid intent and give valid consent. How much more of a “psychological” hurdle does someone with bipolar have? And yet, they can marry.

Your standard is WAY out of whack with what the Church regards as valid intent and valid consent.

 

[1ke]

So there is something very special and sacred about a Catholic marriage that you can get nowhere else.

Um, no, there is a canonical requirement for form that grew out of the practice in earlier times (when there was no requirement of a Church witness) for men to repudiate wives with some frequency. The requirement for Form was instituted to combat this problem. When there were no witnesses it was very easy for powerful men to repudiate their wives as if they had been merely concubines.

Hmmm, so how does one NOT SHOCK THE YOUNG FAMILY MEMBERS of our extended family into thinking that our cohabiting family member about to be married in the Catholic Church is not receiving a defacto blessing by the church for his cohabiting practices.

They are receiving a blessing of their marriage, not their cohabitation.

How about a very private ceremony with minimal witnesses with the complete Catholic form?

That is an option, but the Church does not dictate how many people may witness a marriage. If the Pope makes such a canonical requirement, or a bishop establishes that in his diocese, then that would be the requirement. But, to date, none has done so.

God bless you, 1ke, for putting up with my impertinence of questioning our church leaders but, c’mon now… Doesn’t this make just a little common sense?

I think you and another poster are both in a place where you desire punitive action against such couples. I am not in such a place. I see the role of the Church differently and the nature of marriage differently.

I believe the Bishops and the Pope see the problem as I do (or more accurately, I see it as they do) and are giving a pastoral response to assist these couples in regularizing their situation.

The only thing I can suggest is that you talk to your priest-- or your bishop-- and have him explain why it is not in the best interest of anyone to attempt to put punitive measures in place to deter people from the sacraments.

 

[wynnejj]

I think you and another poster are both in a place where you desire punitive action against such couples. I am not in such a place. I see the role of the Church differently and the nature of marriage differently.

You misrepresent me. There has been a moratorium on preaching about the evils of contraception from the Sunday pulpit. There has been a moratorium about speaking plainly that “Abortion is Murder” from the Sunday pulpit. There is a Pandora’s box that has opened because the Catholic Church has not made a real world response to real world situations. Now cohabitation is fashionable, and the Church is fashionable too by preaching compassion when they mean tolerance for norms once unthinkable. There is a word to describe the Church today… SNAFU.

Your head is in the sand with the rest of the modernist Catholic steering committee. Here’s a news flash from St John Vianney that you will never hear from a modernist Sunday pulpit… There is a hell. You better start preaching it or you’ll be reaching it.

 

[1ke]

There has been a moratorium on preaching about the evils of contraception from the Sunday pulpit. There has been a moratorium about speaking plainly that “Abortion is Murder” from the Sunday pulpit.

Who has issued this moratorium? In what diocese? Show me the documentation. The Pope certainly has not issued such a “moratorium.”

This is simply not true.

There is a Pandora’s box that has opened because the Catholic Church has not made a real world response to real world situations. Now cohabitation is fashionable, and the Church is fashionable too by preaching compassion when they mean tolerance for norms once unthinkable. There is a word to describe the Church today… SNAFU.

Again, I suggest you read Marriage, Family, and De Facto Unions. The Church does no such thing.

Your head is in the sand with the rest of the modernist Catholic steering committee.

Me a modernist? Now, **that’s **funny.

Here’s a news flash from St John Vianney that you will never hear from a modernist Sunday pulpit… There is a hell. You better start preaching it or you’ll be reaching it.

I don’t recall denying the existence of hell, which would be a heresy. Hell is quite real, and many people go there. No doubt.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Inability to separate is difference from a lack of willingness to separate. I could leave my fiance, but I don’t want to. Does refusing to break up and get back together mean my judgment is clouded and therefore I can’t get married? No.

And as for living a life of sin being a basis for annulment, WE ARE ALL LIVING A LIFE OF SIN. So I guess any Catholic can get their marriage annulled at any time because they were living a life of sin.

And sin is sin. You say they should be denied marriage because they are sinning. So a couple that is envious of a married couple (because they get to live together and come home to each other) should be denied a marriage because they are living a sinful life (envy) and their judgment is clouded (by the desire to live together).

Yes, sex can create a bond, but just because it creates a bond does not mean that there is no bond outside of sex.

 

[Pug]

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.

I agree, the canons themselves there don’t appear to talk about it (I didn’t look at where you linked…I read the marriage form canons in my own copy/commentary). It is on account of the commentary that I said what I did. I only have a reference, that I have no idea how to find on the internet, or even if it would be there:

CodCom, reply, July 5, 1985 AAS 77(1985) 771

which possibly is this

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, 14 May 1985, in
AAS, 77 (1985), p. 771.

 

[1ke]

I agree, the canons themselves there don’t appear to talk about it (I didn’t look at where you linked…I read the marriage form canons in my own copy/commentary). It is on account of the commentary that I said what I did. I only have a reference, that I have no idea how to find on the internet, or even if it would be there:

CodCom, reply, July 5, 1985 AAS 77(1985) 771

which possibly is this

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, 14 May 1985, in
AAS, 77 (1985), p. 771.

It is quite possible that there is a directive via the Commentary (which I’d have to go dig out at the Church library… so I’ll pass) or some subsequent clarification from the Holy See.

I am not a canon lawyer. I have only taken a training from our diocesan tribunal. So the probably don’t cover all the nuances… just the basics. ya know?

 

[ddarko]

You do not have a good understanding of the Church’s requirement to contract a valid marriage.

Sure. It is possible.

You must not exclude by a postive act of your will the three essential properties of marriage: fecundy, fidelity, and perpetuity. If the couple exchanges vows, their internal disposition is presumed to correspond to their external words. IOW, the priest will have discussed the essential properties of marriage and if they do not exclude any of these, they can validly marry.

Once again, you are continually missing my point. I am saying that refusal to separate prior to marriage is a sign that the couple’s judgment is clouded. I agree there can be exceptions (for an example where the couple had discussed PRIOR to moving in and sexual activity that they will marry each other) BUT those are the rare cases. So what I am saying is that you are speaking about the exceptional cases when it comes to cohabitation.

Also, you seem to imply that I am implying a blanket ban on marriage if there was cohabitation. To the contrary, I am saying that case by case analysis is required BUT only a few cases should fit the description. IF THE PERSON REFUSES to separate before marriage (other than a valid case like I mentioned before), then the judgment is clouded.

In order to render marriage invalid, they would have to intend at the time they exchange vows not to be faithful, not to have ever have children, or not believe marriage is for life. The priest goes over this before the marriage goes forward.

Once again, I am saying this oath is taken under influence. “Drunk with love” if that makes it easier for you to understand.

Remember, the Church deemed valid even a marriage between two people who’d never even met each other. Arranged marriages were the norm until very recently. If both people had proper intent and gave valid consent-- the were validly married.

Ok, maybe you are not from a country that does have arranged marriages. I AM FROM one. Arranged marriages involve objective discernment on both parties right up to the parents. So lets not compare apples to oranges here.

Your idea of what it takes to form valid consent or be free to marry is grossly skewed.

I don’t know how I can explain it any plainer than I have. You have convinced yourself that these people have psychological barriers that invalidate consent/intent.

How about people with *actual *mental illnesses? The Church allows *them *to marry, provided they can form valid intent and give valid consent. How much more of a “psychological” hurdle does someone with bipolar have? And yet, they can marry.

Your standard is WAY out of whack with what the Church regards as valid intent and valid consent.

Actually your analogy is rather imperfect. Being Bipolar DOES NOT make you prone to marry a person.

BUT, cohabitation DOES contain psychological as well as financial strings that leads to wanting marriage more than freely decide that they aren’t mean to marry. The fact the couple refuses for some reason to abstain is almost a SURE psychological indication that something of this sort is at work.

God Bless

 

[Pug]

It is quite possible that there is a directive via the Commentary (which I’d have to go dig out at the Church library… so I’ll pass) or some subsequent clarification from the Holy See.

I am not a canon lawyer. I have only taken a training from our diocesan tribunal. So the probably don’t cover all the nuances… just the basics. ya know?

Cool, a training course! I’d probably enjoy that myself. We’ve got some new initiative in our diocese about marriage. Perhaps such a thing would pop up for me.

 

[ddarko]

Inability to separate is difference from a lack of willingness to separate. I could leave my fiance, but I don’t want to. Does refusing to break up and get back together mean my judgment is clouded and therefore I can’t get married? No.

And as for living a life of sin being a basis for annulment, WE ARE ALL LIVING A LIFE OF SIN. So I guess any Catholic can get their marriage annulled at any time because they were living a life of sin.

And sin is sin. You say they should be denied marriage because they are sinning. So a couple that is envious of a married couple (because they get to live together and come home to each other) should be denied a marriage because they are living a sinful life (envy) and their judgment is clouded (by the desire to live together).

Yes, sex can create a bond, but just because it creates a bond does not mean that there is no bond outside of sex.

I assume you are referring to my views here.

Yes, if you truly feel or think that you cannot temporally separate from your spouse at this time and are NOT married yet, then your judgment is most likely clouded. This is what happens when you jump the gun and move in together.

Just ask yourself, why can’t you move out OR abstain? I can understand inability to move out perhaps due to financial arrangements BUT, what about abstinence? Surely, that should be possible? All recent studies have shown that cohabitation before marriage means either no marriage ever takes place OR higher chance of a divorce after marriage. Why would you knowingly jeopardize the only thing you care so much about?

The fact that even after I told you the above bit of information, you will still risk it, is a clear sign that your judgment is clouded. After all, what do you have to loose in separating OR at least abstaining until marriage? If your spouse ***truly ***loves you, he/she will still love you and you would be pleasing in God’s eyes as well.

But I honestly don’t know your full situation so better talk to a nice Traditional priest about it.

God Bless

 

[1ke]

Once again, I am saying this oath is taken under influence. “Drunk with love” if that makes it easier for you to understand.

“Clouded judgment” isn’t an impediment to valid marriage. It simply isn’t. Even **with **this so-called “clouded judgment” a person can still form valid intent and give valid consent.

 

[1ke]

I’m done.

 

[Pug]

I assume you are referring to my views here.

Yes, if you truly feel or think that you cannot separate from your spouse at this time and are NOT married yet, then your judgment is most likely clouded. This is what happens when you jump the gun and move in together.

Just ask yourself, why can’t you move out and abstain? All recent studies have shown that cohabitation before marriage means either no marriage OR higher chance of a divorce after marriage. Why would you knowingly jeopardize the only thing you care so much about?

The fact that even after I told you the above bit of information, you will still risk it, is a clear sign that your judgment is clouded. After all, what do you have to loose in separating until marriage? If your spouse ***truly ***loves you, he/she will still love you and you would be pleasing in God’s eyes as well.

But I honestly don’t know your full situation so better talk to a nice Traditional priest about it.

God Bless

If you take two cohabiting couples, alike in every way, but force one to separate for 3 months before marriage, but not the other, and then after three months both couples are married, which couple has the higher chance of having a marriage that lasts?

The reason I said “force” is because if it is self-chosen which couple separates, then it could be that underlying factor that is the key. In other words, it would be association, not causation.

I guess I’d like to know if it is known to do anything measurable, this making couples separate? I’m asking this because of my experience of being made to separate as a married couple. It had lasting, long term-effects. Ones I did not like. Also, during our engagement, we were separated for about 4 months before our marriage (by a whole country, I’m not talking about cohabiting). This also seemed to have some negative effects. I realize, of course, it could be because my husband and I are lame. But still. It really makes me wonder.

 

[ddarko]

“Clouded judgment” isn’t an impediment to valid marriage. It simply isn’t. Even **with **this so-called “clouded judgment” a person can still form valid intent and give valid consent.

Come on, I am simply saying that with clouded judgment, the agreements the couple makes to have children, live together for the rest of their lives etc are all just under the high of passion. You keep repeating to me that it does not cloud their judgment. It’s like you just don’t want to accept any of the psychological factors of cohabitation just because a church document gives the OK for cohabiting couples to marry .

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

If you take two cohabiting couples, alike in every way, but force one to separate for 3 months before marriage, but not the other, and then after three months both couples are married, which couple has the higher chance of having a marriage that lasts?

The reason I said “force” is because if it is self-chosen which couple separates, then it could be that underlying factor that is the key. In other words, it would be association, not causation.

I guess I’d like to know if it is known to do anything measurable, this making couples separate? I’m asking this because of my experience of being made to separate as a married couple. It had lasting, long term-effects. Ones I did not like. Also, during our engagement, we were separated for about 4 months before our marriage (by a whole country, I’m not talking about cohabiting). This also seemed to have some negative effects. I realize, of course, it could be because my husband and I are lame. But still. It really makes me wonder.

I think your case is very different. When one says cohabitation, it involves sexual activity. While proximity and contact with your spouse is a psychological necessity for a healthy relationship (even a friendship. according to studies, the idea that absence makes the heart grow fonder does not work for the majority).

So separation in the sens of absolutely no, or limited contact with each other can be certainly detrimental (but nothing beyond repair). This is why geographically separated relationships rarely work out.

What I was talking about here was of a sexual, cohabiting relationship. In such cases, by separation I mean mainly abstinence from sexual activity. I think that is certainly a psychological necessity since as studies have shown, couples who cohabit do not fair that well at marriage and are usually in a passionate stage of love where any separation DOES feel like its the end of the world. Such a couple is not really going to think they are not called to marriage and they are more likely to agree to whatever vows you give them. That was what I was trying to tell 1ke.

God Bless

 

[Pug]

I think your case is very different. When one says cohabitation, it involves sexual activity. While proximity and contact with your spouse is a psychological necessity for a healthy relationship (even a friendship. according to studies, the idea that absence makes the heart grow fonder does not work for the majority).

So separation in the sens of absolutely no, or limited contact with each other can be certainly detrimental (but nothing beyond repair). This is why geographically separated relationships rarely work out.

What I was talking about here was of a sexual, cohabiting relationship. In such cases, by separation I mean mainly abstinence from sexual activity. I think that is certainly a psychological necessity since as studies have shown, couples who cohabit do not fair that well at marriage and are usually in a passionate stage of love where any separation DOES feel like its the end of the world. Such a couple is not really going to think they are not called to marriage and they are more likely to agree to whatever vows you give them. That was what I was trying to tell 1ke.

God Bless

If you just mean the abstinence part, that is not so worrisome. I don’t immediately know why a couple that understands/concurs with church teaching would refuse this request. I do understand why they might fail, but that they would refuse to try, I don’t get. How common is a refusal to try when the priest requires abstinence for awhile before marriage?

I agree that some couples are likely to take whatever vows they are required to take to get married, but they don’t have to be cohabiting to do so. Vows are just some hoop that the world (universe, life, the Church, family, society, civil law, “they”) require. It is the form of how the thing is done. I don’t mean that for myself now. I just mean that I can see that some will make whatever vow because that is what is done if one is to marry, and marriage is the plan.