Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

[ddarko]

Do any of these impediments include cohabitation?
Do any of the canons state that a priest cannot marry someone who is cohabitating?
When the canon is silent on this topic how can this be true. The is no rule to “blindly” follow.

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

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

Ok no offense against you. But it was rather ironic that you state “It would more helpful if you didn’t speculate on the motives of other posters.” while you speculated on mine and those of others yourself

So to answer your question, I am saying that there is evidence to show that cohabitation does affect what is indeed important and considered as impediments for a marriage.

Take the example of promise to be open to Children etc. A couple who is so passionately involved in a sexual relationship wouldn’t care less about what they are saying YES to. For them, nothing else than their sexual life is important. Infact, their insistence to say NO to abstaining from sex PRIOR to marriage when even advised is a VERY GOOD INDICATION of that. Just as you can’t trick a person in to marriage, just getting someone to agree to the vows and “marrying” them is like marrying a intoxicated couple.

Now to go ahead and marry such a couple is just stupid. Canon’s might not explicit state such things but a priest is a human being with reason. Not a computer program that cross references a set of rules to spit out the correct answer. Even computer programs can do better than that these days.

God Bless

 

[davidv]

Ok no offense against you. But it was rather ironic that you state “It would more helpful if you didn’t speculate on the motives of other posters.” while you speculated on mine and those of others yourself

Would kindly point out in my post where I was judging you motives so that I can correct it in future posts.

So to answer your question, I am saying that there is evidence to show that cohabitation does affect what is indeed important and considered as impediments for a marriage.

So you say. However, since the canon is silent on the matter it is up to the judgement of the priest to determine if it presents a serious problem. It is not an automatic no-go decision.

Take the example of promise to be open to Children etc. A couple who is so passionately involved in a sexual relationship wouldn’t care less about what they are saying YES to. For them, nothing else than their sexual life is important. Infact, their insistence to say NO to abstaining from sex PRIOR to marriage when even advised is a VERY GOOD INDICATION of that. Just as you can’t trick a person in to marriage, just getting someone to agree to the vows and “marrying” them is like marrying a intoxicated couple.

How would you know any of this unless you knew the couple? It certainly cannot be the case 100% of the time. And if true, why would they be asking to be married? This is why there is no impediment specified. There are too many individual case variables.

Now to go ahead and marry such a couple is just stupid.

This is not your nor my call. This is the job of the pastor.

Canon’s might not explicit state such things but a priest is a human being with reason. Not a computer program that cross references a set of rules to spit out the correct answer.

God Bless

This does not follow. Nothing contrary to this was stated nor implied.

 

[ddarko]

Would kindly point out in my post where I was judging you motives so that I can correct it in future posts.

Sorry, I should have clarified. What I pointed out here was like a scenario where someone says “do not judge”. In a ways its ironic because that person is judging me as being judgmental of others. Similar thing with your comment before. You said I was being speculative while at the same time, you were being speculative that Tafan did not intend such as what you speculate me of accusing him. So in short, its no big deal.

So you say. However, since the canon is silent on the matter it is up to the judgement of the priest to determine if it presents a serious problem. It is not an automatic no-go decision.

Yes. And as I said above to Incomplete, it should be the norm that it is usually a NO-GO. Only very limited amount of cases should be otherwise.

How would you know any of this unless you knew the couple? It certainly cannot be the case 100% of the time. And if true, why would they be asking to be married? This is why there is no impediment specified. There are too many individual case variables.

For sure. But what I said was the Norm. Not the exception. For an example, I could try to defend abortion saying the mothers life is at risk (lets forget for the sake of this point that it is still wrong even if it is). But as evidence will clearly show you, such situations are actually the exception. Many people have abortions for other reasons.

This is a similar case. Evidence shows otherwise about cohabiting couples.

This is not your nor my call. This is the job of the pastor.

Sure. Just as its the job of the computer. All I am saying is that the Pastor or the Computer needs to be KNOW he can say NO. There is no SHOULD marry them even if they cohabit. And that is my responsibility as well.

This does not follow. Nothing contrary to this was stated nor implied.

Maybe you weren’t following but such a thing WAS implied. The position of 1ke and Tafan has been that by default a priest SHOULD marry a cohabiting couple regardless of their refusal to abstain from sexual activity. In other words, it should be the norm and refusal should be the exception.

God Bless

 

[davidv]

Sorry, I should have clarified. What I pointed out here was like a scenario where someone says “do not judge”. In a ways its ironic because that person is judging me as being judgmental of others. Similar thing with your comment before. You said I was being speculative while at the same time, you were being speculative that Tafan did not intend such as what you speculate me of accusing him. So in short, its no big deal.

Yes. And as I said above to Incomplete, it should be the norm that it is usually a NO-GO. Only very limited amount of cases should be otherwise.

The basis for this claim seems to be in what you guess is going on behind closed doors and somehow coming to the conclusion that it results in some unnamed impediment.

Clearly the divorce rates indicates that a better job needs to be done preparing couples for marriage. However to deny them the graces of the sacrament based on some speculative subjective criteria seems to be equally wrong.

For sure. But what I said was the Norm. Not the exception. For an example, I could try to defend abortion saying the mothers life is at risk (lets forget for the sake of this point that it is still wrong even if it is). But as evidence will clearly show you, such situations are actually the exception. Many people have abortions for other reasons.

This is a similar case. Evidence shows otherwise about cohabiting couples.

Based on some of the data presented in this thread and others, the conclusion is not as clearcut as you say.

Sure. Just as its the job of the computer. All I am saying is that the Pastor or the Computer needs to be KNOW he can say NO. There is no SHOULD marry them even if they cohabit. And that is my responsibility as well.

I don’t get your point of this. Please clarify.

Maybe you weren’t following but such a thing WAS implied. The position of 1ke and Tafan has been that by default a priest SHOULD marry a cohabiting couple regardless of their refusal to abstain from sexual activity. In other words, it should be the norm and refusal should be the exception.

God Bless

I certainly read them differently. From what I could tell they were simply objecting, like I was, to your claim that they must do so as the norm.

 

[ddarko]

The basis for this claim seems to be in what you guess is going on behind closed doors and somehow coming to the conclusion that it results in some unnamed impediment.

Clearly the divorce rates indicates that a better job needs to be done preparing couples for marriage. However to deny them the graces of the sacrament based on some speculative subjective criteria seems to be equally wrong.

Unfortunately what I say is not merely speculation. Is it speculation if I told you that vast majority of the mothers who seek abortions are NOT those that there life is at danger? If your answer is YES, then I am indeed guilty of giving you speculations.

Based on some of the data presented in this thread and others, the conclusion is not as clearcut as you say.

Actually it is. If anything, the only studies that were presented here (which were recent ones) indicate that cohabitation and non-cohabiting couples are now approaching the same divorce rates. What these posters don’t seem to have realized is that it does not mean that cohabitation and divorce rates involved with it have been dropping. It just shows that the divorce rate of non-cohabiting couples have started to approach that of the cohabiting.

Now the analysis of this is however a different psychological issue. If I may spend sometime on it, you have to remember that cohabitation is NOT the sole reason for Divorce. Therefore, this rise can be attributed to the other problems that have occured against family in the recent years.

To consider one such problem directly related to cohabitation, the fact that you are from a divorced family does increase the propensity for Divorce. So if anything, the current data shows that the amount of divorces have reached such a critical state since there are many who are from already broken families. Quiet a problematic result actually. But in any case, I just want you to realize that even if the studies presented here by other people are true, it does not undermine what was observed prior and established. It only shows that the problem has become worsened.

But as you can see, that does not mean that we can keep marrying cohabiting couples like there is no problem.

I don’t get your point of this. Please clarify.

Simple, there is no SHOULD marry cohabiting couples that refuse. On the other hand, there is a DON’T marry them. The priest however MAY choose to marry in special cases but they are the EXCEPTION.

I certainly read them differently. From what I could tell they were simply objecting, like I was, to your claim that they must do so as the norm.

Then you are indeed arguing as they do. You want the opposite to be the NORM of what I consider should be the norm. So I am certainly against your position and theirs.

God Bless

 

[davidv]

Unfortunately what I say is not merely speculation. Is it speculation if I told you that vast majority of the mothers who seek abortions are NOT those that there life is at danger? If your answer is YES, then I am indeed guilty of giving you speculations.

What do abortions have to do with impediments to marriage?

Actually it is. If anything, the only studies that were presented here (which were recent ones) indicate that cohabitation and non-cohabiting couples are now approaching the same divorce rates. What these posters don’t seem to have realized is that it does not mean that cohabitation and divorce rates involved with it have been dropping. It just shows that the divorce rate of non-cohabiting couples have started to approach that of the cohabiting.

Now the analysis of this is however a different psychological issue. If I may spend sometime on it, you have to remember that cohabitation is NOT the sole reason for Divorce. Therefore, this rise can be attributed to the other problems that have occured against family in the recent years.

To consider one such problem directly related to cohabitation, the fact that you are from a divorced family does increase the propensity for Divorce. So if anything, the current data shows that the amount of divorces have reached such a critical state since there are many who are from already broken families. Quiet a problematic result actually. But in any case, I just want you to realize that even if the studies presented here by other people are true, it does not undermine what was observed prior and established. It only shows that the problem has become worsened.

But as you can see, that does not mean that we can keep marrying cohabiting couples like there is no problem.

I have not stated this. Why do you think I did?

Simple, there is no SHOULD marry cohabiting couples that refuse. On the other hand, there is a DON’T marry them. The priest however MAY choose to marry in special cases but they are the EXCEPTION.

I think you have misrepresented my position with a strawman and a false dicotomy.

Then you are indeed arguing as they do. You want the opposite to be the NORM of what I consider should be the norm. So I am certainly against your position and theirs.

God Bless

False dicotomy fallacy. There are the other positions. But it appears they are off the table for discussion.

 

[Vince1022]

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

Are you claiming that the Church teaching something for a long period of time means the truth of such teaching cannot be questioned?

 

[davidv]

Are you claiming that the Church teaching something for a long period of time means the truth of such teaching cannot be questioned?

No it means if the Church teaches something it does so because it is true. And it is known to be true because it was entrusted to her by God in the Deposit of the Faith which was delivered to and was protected by the apostles and their successors.

 

[Vince1022]

No it means if the Church teaches something it does so because it is true. And it is known to be true because it was entrusted to her by God in the Deposit of the Faith which was delivered to and was protected by the apostles and their successors.

Oh come on. The Church taught slavery was ok for a very long time. The Church taught “usury” (chargng interest) was wrong for a very long time.

The first ecumenical council (Niceaa, 325 A.D.) prohibited Bishops transferring from one See to another.

 

[wynnejj]

This thread has morphed into a question of prudence on the matter of whether the Magisterium recommendation via Familiaris Consortio most recently and it’s 2000 year old policy that the good of couples making their marital vows when they have been cohabitating (and being bound to raising their children in the Catholic faith) supercedes the perception of scandal because of reasons related to rash judging the true motives of the cohabitating applicants and the questions of grounds for annulment for already existing marriages that were formed by cohabitating couples.

In our sexually permissive society, I tend to agree with the sentiments of ddarko that basically says cohabitation is not the issue - the issue is the effrontery of asking the Catholic Church to marry them when they are unwilling to abstain from relations until they are properly married for whatever reason. To me, the scandal to young adults who are swayed by the prevailing winds of today’s society see the Church as not being who she says she is. (Kind of like… I make it a rule not to fool around with women possessed by the devil… Well it’s more of guideline than a rule)

 

[tafan]

Are you claiming that the Church teaching something for a long period of time means the truth of such teaching cannot be questioned?

If the teaching is part of church dogma, it cannot be questioned. If it is a long standing discipline of the church or something to that effect, I am saying it is very unwise.

 

[ddarko]

What do abortions have to do with impediments to marriage?

Davidv, I am afraid I am probably to blame for you not understanding my analogy. I am not really here as an instructor. I thought it was possible for a reasonable person to understand.

I was just making the comparison that just as the fact I presented about abortion is NOT speculation, what I presented as facts about Cohabitation and marriage are NOT speculation. I am not sure how you missed this

I have not stated this. Why do you think I did?

I don’t know David, unless I am blind, you stated that people have provided studies that prove otherwise.

I think you have misrepresented my position with a strawman and a false dicotomy.

David, I am not sure what you are talking about. It might help to be a bit objective and not go all out to defense your own view.

I was simply stating what I meant before. Then you challenge me of attacking a straw man. How does me stating my view equal attacking a straw man? I think Oranges are a good source of Vitamin C, does that attack a straw man?

False dicotomy fallacy. There are the other positions. But it appears they are off the table for discussion.

Goodness me David, at least know when to apply a fallacy. I wasn’t even making an argument in that line. I was simply stating what I stood for and that it opposes your view. Now if it doesn’t, you should have been able to realize (probably if you weren’t so hell bent on just replying to me), that there is nothing to argue about. If my position does not invalidate yours, and to say that it does is a false dicotomy, then what on earth are you arguing about?

God Bless

 

[Vince1022]

If the teaching is part of church dogma, it cannot be questioned.

Not true. Our beliefs may always be questioned. That is the point of theology. Faith seeking understanding, as St. Anselm described.

Questioning is not the same as disbelief, denial, or lack of faith.

 

[tafan]

Not true. Our beliefs may always be questioned. That is the point of theology. Faith seeking understanding, as St. Anselm described.

Questioning is not the same as disbelief, denial, or lack of faith.

Semantics, if by questioning you mean seeking understanding, of course. If by questioning you mean entertaining doubt, not they cannot. I used a poor choice of words.

 

[Vince1022]

Semantics, if by questioning you mean seeking understanding, of course. If by questioning you mean entertaining doubt, not they cannot. I used a poor choice of words.

Maybe.

But can we really separate “doubt” and “seeking understanding?”

Just wondering. Thanks.

 

[wynnejj]

Our archdiocese and local parishes are a society within our community’s society. So, when you say “sexual permissive society” and “burden of scandal” being shared with cohabitating couples, do we not share in that burden when we don’t take a stand in our marriage preparation policies? If you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing, is it not true?

Is the RCC a sexually permissive society?

From “Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples” at nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

1. Is it possible for cohabitation to scandalize the community?
   
   Many diocesan marriage preparation policies note the possibility of scandal. Scandal is a multi-faceted reality. In society as a whole, cohabitation neither carries the stigma nor causes the scandal that it did just two generations ago. As the bishops of Kansas point out, “As society no longer adheres to traditional moral values and norms, scandal becomes less and less a concern to many people”. The burden of scandal falls not just on the cohabiting couple, but on our sexually permissive society.
   
   The cohabiting couple is living contrary to the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexual love. By acting as if they are married when they are not, they risk scandalizing the believing community. It is also possible to cause scandal, however, through a lack of understanding and compassion for couples in irregular situations. Whether and how couples are welcomed can mean the difference between alienation from the Church or renewed involvement.
   
   Moreover, parents and pastoral ministers may have a different opinion of how scandal occurs. Parents who were deeply distressed by their children’s cohabitation are relieved when the son or daughter approaches the Church for marriage. They believe that the scandal is easing. At this point, however, priests and pastoral ministers fear that the scandal is about to start. Both viewpoints have some merit, and point to the need for understanding different perspectives on scandal.

 

[tafan]

Maybe.

But can we really separate “doubt” and “seeking understanding?”

Just wondering. Thanks.

Of course we can. It is easy to see the difference, entertaining doubt, is willfully questioning if a belief is true. Seeking understanding is questioning why a belief is true. Now, I did not say all doubt was a sin, although that has been argued by many and I think it is possible, but willfully doubting is certainly so. I think wilful doubting is more common, IMO.

 

[Incomplete]

Of course we can. It is easy to see the difference, entertaining doubt, is willfully questioning if a belief is true. Seeking understanding is questioning why a belief is true. Now, I did not say all doubt was a sin, although that has been argued by many and I think it is possible, but willfully doubting is certainly so. I think wilful doubting is more common, IMO.

I hope that not all doubt is a sin because it’s something I struggle with all the time. I don’t “entertain” it, I’d like it to go away, but it’s there nonetheless. Having said that, it’s been the cause of a lot of spiritual growth on my part. I tend to wonder sometimes if my doubt, as much as I hate it, hasn’t been a gift from God.

 

[Barsabbas]

I am amused by Tafan’s “Willfully doubting” remark." Really, just HOW does one “willfully doubt?” It’s an impossibility, both logically and ontologically. When one doubts, one IS IN DOUBT. NOT SURE. UNCERTAIN. One CANNOT willfully doubt. PERIOD.

One must also remember what has always been taught by the Church:

“WHERE THERE IS DOUBT THERE CAN BE NO SIN.”

 

[tafan]

I am amused by Tafan’s “Willfully doubting” remark." Really, just HOW does one “willfully doubt?” It’s an impossibility, both logically and ontologically. When one doubts, one IS IN DOUBT. NOT SURE. UNCERTAIN. One CANNOT willfully doubt. PERIOD.

One must also remember what has always been taught by the Church:

“WHERE THERE IS DOUBT THERE CAN BE NO SIN.”

I don’t know where you think the church taught that, but I think it is wrong. Please provide a reference, and if I am proved wrong, I will definitely retract.

As to being amused, I dont see why. I was simply stating the Church’s teaching, albeit with a little less precise language, but I was certainly close enough:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

I would add, that failure in attempting to address voluntary doubt, (by prayer, reflection, study,etc), likely makes it fall into the category of voluntary doubt.
Incomplete: not all doubt is a sin, but you need to address it always.