Rubberstamping Pre-Marital Sex in Marriage Prep Policy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wynnejj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wynnejj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said.

God Bless 🙂
 
Again, another reply to Tafan’s comment on “voluntary” and “involuntary” doubt.

The Catholic Catechism states:

"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.
—end quote—

May I just say that the usages, “voluntary doubt” and “involuntary doubt,” are dangerously unfortunate choices and imprecise words chosen by the Catholic Catechism to explain sins against faith. Voluntary Doubt sould be seen as follows:

“Purposely choosing not to believe” the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and [what] the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt must be interpreted as “a fear of, or a deferral of, belief.”

After all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church IS NOT Sacred Scripture, and is not necessarily carved in stone, as many uninformed individuals would believe.

There are other areas of the Catechism, also, which are truly arguable, and are, indeed, still debated today by both clergy and laity alike. This I know because I have talked with several priests about the new Catechism, and it is not held in high esteem by all, just as so many other catechisms before it were not. Yet, its structure is basically sound and meant only for the common good.
 
Barsabbas, where did your definitions come from? I am curious, as they do not seem correct to me. I disagree with your definition of voluntary doubt, as your definition would seem to fit the sin of apostasy, not doubt, two different things. But, perhaps a reference to where they came from would help me out, as I could then read the context. If anything the new Catechism allowed for more doubt than the common previous teaching and seems to have struch the right note for our time.
 
tafan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I still think doubt and seeking understanding are inseparable.
 
tafan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I found that post very persuasive. I think that the burden of proof is on you.

How can “doubt” be something certainly willed? If one has certainty, one does not doubt. If one wills a given action or thought, there is no doubt about what is willed/intended.
 
tafan said:
Barsabbas, where did your definitions come from? I am curious, as they do not seem correct to me. I disagree with your definition of voluntary doubt, as your definition would seem to fit the sin of apostasy, not doubt, two different things. But, perhaps a reference to where they came from would help me out, as I could then read the context. If anything the new Catechism allowed for more doubt than the common previous teaching and seems to have struch the right note for our time.
Click to expand...
A reference to the Catechism was given.
 
Vince1022,

Barsabbas simply copied the reference from the catechism that I had already given to make my point about voluntary and involuntary doubt in post #120. I was asking for a reference for this definition:

"Voluntary Doubt sould be seen as follows:

Purposely choosing not to believe" the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and [what] the Church proposes for belief"

Which is what I have a problem with. As to burden of proof, I think the CCC 2088, see post 120, is all the backing I need. Voluntary doubt is sinful, involuntary doubt needs to be addressed through prayer, study, and reflection.

Defining involuntary doubt as “Purposely choosing not to believe” is simply not correct. There is a difference between doubt and unbleif, that should be clear to all. Saying there is not, seems to me to be denying there is any such thing as a sin of doubt. This has never been Church teaching.
 
The reference is 2088 in the CCC, part 3, section 2 “Ten Commandments”, chapter 1, article 1: “The First Commandment”. Citation 2088 starts with the following words:

“The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and reject everything that is opposed to it.”

This thread is about questioning the teaching form of the the Church, not its teaching authority or beliefs.

**This thread is about the teaching moment of our times being usurped with ambiguous language and possibly profane reception of our sacraments.
**
I’ve had to wrestle with involuntary doubt for some time. I would watch week after week nearly 100% of the Sunday congregation receive the Holy Eucharist, yet the 25,000 human lives lost that week were not offered a prayer petition. Priests for Life started a full 17 years after Roe v Wade, and went from a staff of 1 to 40 a full 20 years after well over 20 million lives lost. Yet talking with Catholics I could hardly get an acknowledgement of the horror of the holocaust. It made me involuntarily doubt the Holy Eucharist.
 
Vince1022 said:
Thanks. I still think doubt and seeking understanding are inseparable.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I have no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but I may continually seek to understand it better. For me personally, rIght now, I have no doubt that confirmation is one of the sacraments of the Church, that one receives the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But I need to understand it better.

If one only seeks better understanding of the faith when one doubts, that is a big problem. As one is never taking advantage of periods of strenght of faith to grow in the faith. I just cannot see how one has to be doubting to be seeking understanding. It is a very strange thought. And, this may be a little blunt, but it seems to be a very dangerous way of thinking.
 
Voluntary Doubt is when you say “I don’t want to believe”. Involuntary Doubt is when you say “I want to believe, but”.

For example, say I’m the moderator and I say “Quit hijacking the thread and start a new one on Voluntary Doubt and Involuntary Doubt”. And you say, “I don’t believe that I’m hijacking the thread.”. Now that’s voluntary doubt. On the other hand, you could say “I’m with you moderator and will do as you say but, I think maybe I’m not hijacking the thread because the opening poster opened the door to this discussion when he suggested that the policy of allowing cohabitating couples to marry might be sacrilegious”. That would be involuntary doubt.

(Get my drift…;))
 
wynnejj said:
For example, say I’m the moderator and I say “Quit hijacking the thread and start a new one on Voluntary Doubt and Involuntary Doubt”. And you say, “I don’t believe that I’m hijacking the thread.”. Now that’s voluntary doubt. On the other hand, you could say “I’m with you moderator and will do as you say but, I think maybe I’m not hijacking the thread because the opening poster opened the door to this discussion when he suggested that the policy of allowing cohabitating couples to marry might be sacrilegious”. That would be involuntary doubt.

(Get my drift…;))
Click to expand...
Laughing because even though I’ve participated in this part of the discussion, I’ve had the same thought.

Thanks for the nice start to the day.
 
I partially agree with Wynejj that the Church can be confusing in its directives at times and that, indeed, there IS a gray area in many instances,

In the instance of “The Sin of Voluntary Doubt,” and the “Sin of Involuntary Doubt,” I just talked with a priest YESTERDAY about this. He holds an S.T.D. in, of course, Theology.

He, too, is “uncertain” (IN DOUBT) about the tract in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church about the sin of doubt. He doubts whether one can commit ANY SIN while in the state of doubt. He made a very inept statement about it when he said:

“Well, if you go to confession and you’re not sure if you consented to a particular sin, it’s better to confess it and get it off your chest.” NO IT’S NOT! Another priest said that, to do this, would promote scrupulosity, and I totally agree.

So, no one is really together on this “doubt thing” – this so-called “sin of doubt.”

We have to get together, Tafan.
 
wynnejj, sorry about the thread drift.

Barsabbas, just want to be clear, I have never stated and certainly did not mean to imply that involuntary doubt was a sin, I simply said it needed to be addressed. Failure to address would normally indicate that one is ok with living with the doubt, hence it becomes voluntary doubt.
 
wynnejj said:
They then should be encouraged to abstain from sexual relations. Regardless, the Catholic parties should be encouraged to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that they are in the state of grace to receive and confer the Sacrament of Marriage.
Click to expand...
Based on the evidence that I’ve seen so far, it appears that a cohabitating couple do not have to be in a state of grace to receive and confer the sacrament of marriage. And the tradition of the Catholic Church does not view having received and conferred the Sacrament of Marriage in this state as a sacrilege. With difficulty, I can accept this on faith.

However, I do believe that burden of scandal as a sexually strict religion in principle, but sexually permissive religion in enforcement of marriage prep policies, is shared by the church and the cohabitating couple (assuming that pre-marital sexual “right to trial marriage” is openly asserted). That is, unless the ceremony is made very private following all the Catholic forms, but highlighted as irregular circumstances.
 
Barsabbas said:
He holds an S.T.D. in, of course, Theology.
Click to expand...
How does one get hold of an S.T.D. in Theology? 😉
Just a rhetorical question to deftly steer the conversation back to my post #116.
wynnejj said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
By the way, one gets an S. T.D. (Doctorate in Sacred Theology) by going to graduate school and getting the degree by study and thesis writing, just like any Ph.D. would.
 
tafan said:
Vince1022,

Barsabbas simply copied the reference from the catechism that I had already given to make my point about voluntary and involuntary doubt in post #120. I was asking for a reference for this definition:

"Voluntary Doubt sould be seen as follows:

Purposely choosing not to believe" the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and [what] the Church proposes for belief"

Which is what I have a problem with. As to burden of proof, I think the CCC 2088, see post 120, is all the backing I need. Voluntary doubt is sinful, involuntary doubt needs to be addressed through prayer, study, and reflection.

Defining involuntary doubt as “Purposely choosing not to believe” is simply not correct. There is a difference between doubt and unbleif, that should be clear to all. Saying there is not, seems to me to be denying there is any such thing as a sin of doubt. This has never been Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes of course doubt and unbelief are distinct. This applies to the OP’ s post how?
 
tafan said:
V
"Voluntary Doubt sould be seen as follows:

Purposely choosing not to believe" the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and [what] the Church proposes for belief"
Click to expand...
How is that “voluntary doubt”? seems like “voluntary disbelief” to me. Disbelief and doubt are not the same. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top