Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[angelerulastiel]

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

You know what they say about assuming. I said LEAVE, not stop having sex with or stop living with. I meant break off the engagement. You seem to not be able to separate inability and refusal. Just because a couple REFUSES to separate does not mean they are UNABLE to separate. You are using refuse and unable interchangeably. A couple that refusing to stop having sex is just refusing to stop having sex. They may not believe it is wrong. Just because they don’t believe pre-marital sex is wrong doesn’t mean their judgment about who they marry is clouded. Just because they refuse to stop having sex doesn’t mean they can’t stop and it doesn’t mean they have clouded judgment. And what you might have to lose is a lot of money and a lot of time spent together by separating, and the physical enjoyment and sense of closeness if you abstain. It may not be right but it is understandable why many couples who could separate or abstain might choose not to. To say it is the rule, not the exception, that couple’s judgment is clouded is you deciding something that is none of your business. You aren’t a priest, bishop, or canon lawyer. You are being judgmental. Have you ever been in the situation to personally experience it? Or is this an opinion based solely on a study of psychology?

 

[Antrim]

I was told a story one time about a couple that went to the priest to get married and I think they were living together and the priest asked them if they thought it was a sin and they did not think so or they were not sure. He told them to go home and think about it. When they went back they said they did not think it was a sin. The priest would not marry them.

Antrim

 

[ddarko]

You know what they say about assuming. I said LEAVE, not stop having sex with or stop living with. I meant break off the engagement. You seem to not be able to separate inability and refusal. Just because a couple REFUSES to separate does not mean they are UNABLE to separate. You are using refuse and unable interchangeably. A couple that refusing to stop having sex is just refusing to stop having sex. They may not believe it is wrong. Just because they don’t believe pre-marital sex is wrong doesn’t mean their judgment about who they marry is clouded. Just because they refuse to stop having sex doesn’t mean they can’t stop and it doesn’t mean they have clouded judgment. And what you might have to lose is a lot of money and a lot of time spent together by separating, and the physical enjoyment and sense of closeness if you abstain. It may not be right but it is understandable why many couples who could separate or abstain might choose not to. To say it is the rule, not the exception, that couple’s judgment is clouded is you deciding something that is none of your business. You aren’t a priest, bishop, or canon lawyer. You are being judgmental. Have you ever been in the situation to personally experience it? Or is this an opinion based solely on a study of psychology?

Hey if you want to justify your state of life, don’t try to verbally abuse me for it. It is certainly none of my business what you want to do with your life BUT it is certainly my business to tell you where the psychological facts and studies stands. You challenged what I said, I replied. If you took it personally, well I am sorry. But try to at least think about the facts.

There is no excuse why a unmarried couple should not be UNABLE to abstain for a period before marriage. If you say that you don’t want to, then that is certainly the issue here. Even this view alone shows something missing in your view of human sexuality EVEN from a theological standpoint (let alone a psychological one).

And as I said before, this intimacy and sense of closeness before marriage does not show very good results in marriage compared to those who abstain prior to marriage. Kind of ironic and counter-intuitive isn’t it? But its true. So honestly, I you should really do some objective thinking here. I am also not judging you as a bad person. Hey I have my share of issues But as a Catholic and from what else I know, I do have to condemn the ***action ***of living together just as I would do an abortion. I hope you understand that it is not a condemnation of YOU as a person.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I was told a story one time about a couple that went to the priest to get married and I think they were living together and the priest asked them if they thought it was a sin and they did not think so or they were not sure. He told them to go home and think about it. When they went back they said they did not think it was a sin. The priest would not marry them.

Antrim

I think there is a subtle difference in how this should be interpreted. The priest SHOULD NOT refuse to marry the person simply on the fact that they don’t think it is a sin. As 1ke has been saying to me (assuming that was my position), not admitting the sin does not necessarily make it an impediment to marriage.

However, it also means that the couple will not abstain from sexual activity and therefore will not be able to do a proper discernment. Even the YES to the vows could be the result of this urge to want to be together and nothing else. It is this additional piece of knowledge that certainly justifies the priest in saying NO to cohabiting couples who refuse to admit that their state is sinful and are not willing to do anything about it. The vows taken in marriage and even the decision to marriage must be done after proper discernment and as freely as possible.

God Bless

 

[wynnejj]

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

Yeah, I knew that was a bit of a stretch when I typed it. It was a knee jerk reaction to the “punitive” comment.

I’m a simple guy and I like simple, clear rules. Getting out of college, I was so busy trying to get established in my field with its heavy load of reading assignments that I wasn’t one to read the newspapers, read religious articles or vote in the elections. So when a decade or so after Roe v Wade, I first heard the word “abortion”, found out what it meant, found out the abortion rate was about 1.5 million per year at the time, I was shocked. How come I never heard anything about it at Sunday Mass? Somehow “Didn’t you get the memo?” didn’t cut it when one should be yelling “Fire! Fire!”.

I have yet to hear a Sunday sermon on contraception. Pro-Life activists number about a dozen at our church. Election time comes around, I have to stand across the street with my “Vote Pro-Life” sign, then hear a sermon that says that my church tries to dissuade us from doing so.

I look at teenagers and young adults, and do they get any catechesis from the Sunday pulpit on the relevant issues of the day which are destroying our society by destroying traditional family structures? Do we even have a scorecard of what specifically “Thou shalt not … because it is a mortal sin”?

The bottom line is that I don’t trust my priests and bishops for advice. It’s as simple as that. I only go to them for the sacraments because I know that they are priest-proof.

My angst is not about punishing those who cohabitate before marriage. My angst is about the message it sends to teenagers and young adults about whether the Catholic Church really, really stands for what they have buried in all their silly documents.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Hey if you want to justify your state of life, don’t try to verbally abuse me for it. It is certainly none of my business what you want to do with your life BUT it is certainly my business to tell you where the psychological facts and studies stands. You challenged what I said, I replied. If you took it personally, well I am sorry. But try to at least think about the facts.

There is no excuse why a unmarried couple should not be UNABLE to abstain for a period before marriage. If you say that you don’t want to, then that is certainly the issue here. Even this view alone shows something missing in your view of human sexuality EVEN from a theological standpoint (let alone a psychological one).

And as I said before, this intimacy and sense of closeness before marriage does not show very good results in marriage compared to those who abstain prior to marriage. Kind of ironic and counter-intuitive isn’t it? But its true. So honestly, I you should really do some objective thinking here. I am also not judging you as a bad person. Hey I have my share of issues But as a Catholic and from what else I know, I do have to condemn the ***action ***of living together just as I would do an abortion. I hope you understand that it is not a condemnation of YOU as a person.

God Bless

Now, see you must know that your argument is weak since you resort to personal attacks. And bad personal attacks at that. I told you that I wasn’t cohabitating and you go and say that my view is distorted and I’m just trying to justify my lifestyle. So you think I should be then? And you condemn my action of not living with my fiance.

And you don’t seem to understand the psychological studies. The psychological studies have also found that a couple that cohabitates before marriage with the intention of marrying have just as good or better divorce rates. So on a purely psychological basis, which seems to be your basis for arguing against the church, then you should be promoting engaged couples moving in together.

So either read posts, think about them, read all the studies, not just selected ones, and comment intelligently, or stop posting.

 

[ddarko]

Now, see you must know that your argument is weak since you resort to personal attacks. And bad personal attacks at that. I told you that I wasn’t cohabitating and you go and say that my view is distorted and I’m just trying to justify my lifestyle. So you think I should be then? And you condemn my action of not living with my fiance.

And you don’t seem to understand the psychological studies. The psychological studies have also found that a couple that cohabitates before marriage with the intention of marrying have just as good or better divorce rates. So on a purely psychological basis, which seems to be your basis for arguing against the church, then you should be promoting engaged couples moving in together.

So either read posts, think about them, read all the studies, not just selected ones, and comment intelligently, or stop posting.

No offense but did it occur to you that you might be reading in your thoughts to what I say?

You were the one going crazy at me for saying cohabitation is bad. I simply said if this is your goal to justify your own personal state of life, that is none of my business. I didn’t resort to personal attacks at all.

Secondly, please show me these “psychological” studies you claim. The ones I know about showed no difference in end results based on the intention of the couples who cohabitate. I don’t want to jump the gun but you seem to be in a severe case of denial of facts.

I have no need to promote engaged couples to move in together either. Psychological evidence points contrary.

You also did not answer my question as to what this burning inability is for a two people to ABSTAIN from SEX until marriage. If two people are indeed under the impression that no sex going to drive them apart, they clearly do have clouded judgment. While due to the wide spread nature of cohabitation in North America and Europe, some priests and bishops want to marry people don’t try and sell it as some infallible practice of the Church. I was simply pointing out that if you are under the same impression that two people cannot abstain, you have a distorted view of human sexuality.

I am 100% with the Teachings of the Church i.e. premarital SEX IS NOT OK. The practice of it’s members however is a different story. I have no obligation to agree with a blanket rule that cohabitation poses no impediment to marriage. That is not an infallible teaching and in this case rightly so because evidence points against it.

God Bless

 

[angelerulastiel]

No offense but did it occur to you that you might be reading in your thoughts to what I say?

You were the one going crazy at me for saying cohabitation is bad. I simply said if this is your goal to justify your own personal state of life, that is none of my business. I didn’t resort to personal attacks at all.

Secondly, please show me these “psychological” studies you claim. The ones I know about showed no difference in end results based on the intention of the couples who cohabitate. I don’t want to jump the gun but you seem to be in a severe case of denial of facts.

I have no need to promote engaged couples to move in together either. Psychological evidence points contrary.

You also did not answer my question as to what this burning inability is for a two people to ABSTAIN from SEX until marriage. If two people are indeed under the impression that no sex going to drive them apart, they clearly do have clouded judgment. While due to the wide spread nature of cohabitation in North America and Europe, some priests and bishops want to marry people don’t try and sell it as some infallible practice of the Church. I was simply pointing out that if you are under the same impression that two people cannot abstain, you have a distorted view of human sexuality.

I am 100% with the Teachings of the Church i.e. premarital SEX IS NOT OK. The practice of it’s members however is a different story. I have no obligation to agree with a blanket rule that cohabitation poses no impediment to marriage. That is not an infallible teaching and in this case rightly so because evidence points against it.

God Bless

The study, which surveyed 13,000 men and women between the ages of 15 to 44, reports that 71% of men who were engaged when they moved in with their future first wife made it to their 10th anniversary. For men who didn’t cohabit before getting married, the success rate dropped slightly to 69%.
Statistics were similarly close for women, with 65% of cohabiting engaged couples standing the test of time, compared to 66% of women who waited until the marriage was official to shack up.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/weddings/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_living_together_before_marriage_doesnt_significantly_raise_likelihood_of_divorce.html

For instance, about 19 percent of those who cohabited before getting engaged had ever suggested divorce compared with just 12 percent of those who only moved in together after getting engaged and 10 percent of participants who did not cohabit prior to the wedding bells.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html

Teachman’s analysis of federal data on 6,577 women whose first marriages occurred between 1970 and 1995 found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse has no greater risk of divorce. But for women who lived with someone else in addition to the eventual husband, there is a greater risk of divorce, found the study, published in 2003.
The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

That should be good to start with. I’m not saying you should cohabitate, but I am arguing that your premise is slightly faulty. And it is on this faulty premise that you challenge the decision of priests and bishops to marry couples that refuse to cease cohabitation.

 

[ddarko]

So either read posts, think about them, read all the studies, not just selected ones, and comment intelligently, or stop posting.

This line deserves separate treatment. Since you were so high and mighty to accuse me of a claim that I am missing studies, show me the STUDIES that show cohabiting couples WITH the intention to marriage shows no difference compared to those who do not cohabit when it comes to marriage. Better be from a reputable source and NOT from an article you wrote to the news paper.

Even without presenting any evidence, just to tell me something that is not even widely accepted in the psychological community makes your claim less intelligent than mine. So if you want to present things that are not common understanding (and revolutionary I might say), at least have the courtesy to present the papers. They better be from a reputable study.

As far as I’ve seen, you haven’t really said anything other than psychological reasons alone do not undermine the idea that one should not refuse to allow marriage for a couple who refuses to ABSTAIN even. I asked you a logical question in the above post and the post before. Please answer them intelligently and don’t just give me a empty arguments which keep repeating “psychological evidence is not enough”.

God Bless

 

[tafan]

This thread was interesting, 1ke has done an excellent job and has been very patient in his explanations, we should all be thankful to him for that.

 

[ddarko]

The study, which surveyed 13,000 men and women between the ages of 15 to 44, reports that 71% of men who were engaged when they moved in with their future first wife made it to their 10th anniversary. For men who didn’t cohabit before getting married, the success rate dropped slightly to 69%.
Statistics were similarly close for women, with 65% of cohabiting engaged couples standing the test of time, compared to 66% of women who waited until the marriage was official to shack up.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/weddings/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_living_together_before_marriage_doesnt_significantly_raise_likelihood_of_divorce.html

For instance, about 19 percent of those who cohabited before getting engaged had ever suggested divorce compared with just 12 percent of those who only moved in together after getting engaged and 10 percent of participants who did not cohabit prior to the wedding bells.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html

Teachman’s analysis of federal data on 6,577 women whose first marriages occurred between 1970 and 1995 found that a woman who has lived only with her future spouse has no greater risk of divorce. But for women who lived with someone else in addition to the eventual husband, there is a greater risk of divorce, found the study, published in 2003.
The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

That should be good to start with. I’m not saying you should cohabitate, but I am arguing that your premise is slightly faulty. And it is on this faulty premise that you challenge the decision of priests and bishops to marry couples that refuse to cease cohabitation.

Oh goody, I was afraid you might be referring to those type of studies.

GIVE ME REPUTABLE PUBLISHED PAPERS!! That is how things get accepted in academia. It doesn’t get accepted because some unknown professor decided to run a study somewhere.

First of all, I don’t even know if the sample sizes of this study are valid to give statistical conclusions. I also don’t even know if the chosen sample was representative. Also, what about reproducibility. Has this study results being replicated anywhere else? These are just some minor problems with the studies you cite.

BTW, you need to also understand the effect Divorce in general has on the society. Cohabitation increases rates in Divorce thus making the society more normative towards Divorce. This does cause an increase risk for non-cohabiting couples to get divorced as well. So if you perform a study between cohabiting couples and non-cohabiting couples in 2020 (if you can find any non-cohabiting ones in North America), the divorce rates might even break even.

So you need to understand, I can’t accept the studies you cite over proper academic studies. I am sure you have heard ample amounts of times that Statistics can be used to twist results. That is certainly a problem with these type of studies.

God Bless

 

[tafan]

I have a hard time seeing how any psychology or academic studies or divorce rates play into the issue at all. The question is, what are the impediments to marriage, what is the Church’s formal role in discerning a marriage, when can the Church without a sacrament. Simple as that.

 

[1ke]

This thread was interesting, 1ke has done an excellent job and has been very patient in his explanations, we should all be thankful to him for that.

He is a she. And, she thanks you. No longer participating though… I’ve gone in circles til I’m dizzy.

 

[Barsabbas]

It must be remembered, regarding pre-marital sex involving those who are soon to be married in the Catholic Church:

There is no sex for anyone outside of marriage! This goes for straights, gays, lesbians, those who might be living together, and so on.

The Church’s teaching about this is quite fair and should be happily considered by those who are engaged to be married in the Church.

Abstinence never caused anyone to die, that I know of, nor has it caused them to go insane. Couples, realistically, must wait until after the marriage for consummation. It won’t kill them, and they’ll be off on the right foot.

 

[davidv]

No offense but did it occur to you that you might be reading in your thoughts to what I say?

You were the one going crazy at me for saying cohabitation is bad. I simply said if this is your goal to justify your own personal state of life, that is none of my business. I didn’t resort to personal attacks at all.

Secondly, please show me these “psychological” studies you claim. The ones I know about showed no difference in end results based on the intention of the couples who cohabitate. I don’t want to jump the gun but you seem to be in a severe case of denial of facts.

I have no need to promote engaged couples to move in together either. Psychological evidence points contrary.

You also did not answer my question as to what this burning inability is for a two people to ABSTAIN from SEX until marriage. If two people are indeed under the impression that no sex going to drive them apart, they clearly do have clouded judgment. While due to the wide spread nature of cohabitation in North America and Europe, some priests and bishops want to marry people don’t try and sell it as some infallible practice of the Church. I was simply pointing out that if you are under the same impression that two people cannot abstain, you have a distorted view of human sexuality.

I am 100% with the Teachings of the Church i.e. premarital SEX IS NOT OK. The practice of it’s members however is a different story. I have no obligation to agree with a blanket rule that cohabitation poses no impediment to marriage. That is not an infallible teaching and in this case rightly so because evidence points against it.

God Bless

How does the fact that fornication is no impediment to marriage make fornication less serious a sin?

Seems to me, you are linking two things together that are not to be linked together.

 

[ddarko]

How does the fact that fornication is no impediment to marriage make fornication less serious a sin?

Seems to me, you are linking two things together that are not to be linked together.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying don’t allow cohabiting couples who refuse to acknowledge their sin to marry because it makes fornication a lesser sin. I am simply saying that having a sexual relationship before marriage and refusing to even acknowledge the truth makes any vow or oath taken about an institution that deals with the very nature of sexual relationships meaningless.

Like think about it, if someone agrees to the promise to have children because they were under the view that it is just a question that needs to be answered and all that matters is the ‘‘relationship’’ between them, is that even a valid promise?

What I am saying is that leniency on this matter in the North American Church is what causes Divorce later on in marriages. This problem thus gets compounded. Divorce contributes to more divorce and studies have shown this to be true. Just one major result is that children of divorced parents tend to be more prone to divorce. So more cohabiting couples the Church passes through, the more chances of Divorce/Annulments with children involved. Thus, the children have a higher chance of divorcing themselves and so the story cascades.

But in short, I am saying the Church is not taking the correct steps in this case. It has the teachings 100% infallible. It’s just not going about correctly to achieve what it needs to.

God Bless

 

[angelerulastiel]

Oh goody, I was afraid you might be referring to those type of studies.

GIVE ME REPUTABLE PUBLISHED PAPERS!! That is how things get accepted in academia. It doesn’t get accepted because some unknown professor decided to run a study somewhere.

First of all, I don’t even know if the sample sizes of this study are valid to give statistical conclusions. I also don’t even know if the chosen sample was representative. Also, what about reproducibility. Has this study results being replicated anywhere else? These are just some minor problems with the studies you cite.

BTW, you need to also understand the effect Divorce in general has on the society. Cohabitation increases rates in Divorce thus making the society more normative towards Divorce. This does cause an increase risk for non-cohabiting couples to get divorced as well. So if you perform a study between cohabiting couples and non-cohabiting couples in 2020 (if you can find any non-cohabiting ones in North America), the divorce rates might even break even.

So you need to understand, I can’t accept the studies you cite over proper academic studies. I am sure you have heard ample amounts of times that Statistics can be used to twist results. That is certainly a problem with these type of studies.

God Bless

I gave you a sample to show that they have found these results. I’m not wasting my day tracking them all down. If you want to dismiss them based on sample size you can go look up the sample sizes. The “problems” you list aren’t problems if they are addressed, and you don’t know if they are. Every study has enough flaws that you can dismiss it if you wish. And in citing your studies you don’t discuss correlation vs. causation.

 

[tafan]

He is a she. And, she thanks you. No longer participating though… I’ve gone in circles til I’m dizzy.

Ms., I am truly very sorry about that.

 

[tafan]

ddarko:

I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying don’t allow cohabiting couples who refuse to acknowledge their sin to marry because it makes fornication a lesser sin. I am simply saying that having a sexual relationship before marriage and refusing to even acknowledge the truth makes any vow or oath taken about an institution that deals with the very nature of sexual relationships meaningless.

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.

 

[ddarko]

I gave you a sample to show that they have found these results. I’m not wasting my day tracking them all down. If you want to dismiss them based on sample size you can go look up the sample sizes. The “problems” you list aren’t problems if they are addressed, and you don’t know if they are. Every study has enough flaws that you can dismiss it if you wish. And in citing your studies you don’t discuss correlation vs. causation.

Once again, whats with this condescending attitude you have?

Did you read my reply in full? Did you catch what I said about the problem of results changing as time goes on? Did you read the part about the possible study in 2020?

You are missing the fact that even if your studies were true, and mine are true, it shows an even dangerous conclusion. It shows that Divorce has become so prevalent that even non-cohabiting couples are divorcing at the same rate. Cohabitation is not the ONLY predictor of Divorce btw.

Of course I don’t worry about correlation. My studies were separate on the point of divorce vs. the psychological nature of the couple. You might have coupled them together but I did not.

The psychological nature of the couple is not correlationary evidence. It is like saying a naked woman can sexually arouse a man. That is not correlation. I hope you understand what I mean.

So two different things were pointed out by me. One was the correlation between Cohabitation and Divorce, Divorce and Divorce of Children AND the other was the psychology of a couple living together in a relationship.

Btw, if your point is that we should not be worried about correlational studies because they are just correlations, is equally laughable.

God Bless