Sex in civil Marriage

[Lapey]

You guys are right, we should married in church instead. No, no one is paying me to get her a green card, she doesnt gives a damn about me fixing her immigration papers or not.

The reason we want to married is to stop commiting Fornication, attend mass and receive the Eucharist. She was hoping if marrying in Civil, will it be ok for god to have sex without worrying of commiting mortal sin. Since the church says we must not have sex until marriage.
If is not ok in gods eyes, so, there is no point of marrying civil cause we are still be commiting fornication in gods eyes until we married in church. The whole point of marrying is to stop sinning.
At the moment she wont consider church marriage for the reason most of her family lives in California as illegals and there no way her family can attend a religious marriage in Mexico. So, my last option is to pay her to apply for a tourist visa and married in church in Calif.

Go and talk with your pastor! If you don’t have a parish that you normally go to, find one and start going now. Make an appointment and tell the pastor everything y0ou told us here, make a good confession and get started on making things right.

If you two love each other and are meant to marry, your pastor can help you through this, not this internet forum.

First step is always, go see your priest! There are ways to “help things happen” when these type of situations come up.

Private message me if you care to talk.

 

[aemcpa]

No – if one was Catholic and the other was a non-Catholic Christian, then it’s possible for the Catholic to receive a dispensation from form. In this case, though, they’re both Catholic, so there’s no dispensation from form (except for a couple of extreme cases, which appear not to be present here).

Good point. Thanks.

 

[1ke]

We are both catholics, but mean while we want to married in Civil to fix her immigration status since she lives in Mexico and I live in Cal, USA, then later about 3-5 years to married in church. This marriage will not be for interest ( married and divorce, No No). We been together for 6 years.

Just do it right. It is not impossible to get married in the Church and abide by immigration laws. Stop looking for a way around this.

If we get the church permission approved to married outside the church, will intimity will be valid and not consider fornication?

No such permission exists. Catholics cannot be dispensed from the requirements of Church law when marrying each other. You must marry in the Church to marry validly, period.

If is still invalid to gods eyes. We are both proceeding to live together unmarried then later five years from now both confessed and married in church.

Just stop all this and go talk to your pastor. Stop trying to find a way around the Church. Just do things right in the first place.

go talk to a knowledgeable immigration lawyer, she cannot marry on a tourist visa. that will cause problems. you need to do this correctly.

 

[aemcpa]

At the moment she wont consider church marriage for the reason most of her family lives in California as illegals and there no way her family can attend a religious marriage in Mexico.

Her family doesn’t need to attend. You need a priest and two witnesses, that’s it.

As others have said, don’t cut corners on this with either the Church or the State. It never ends well for people who do.

 

[tafan]

You can’t get approval from the Church to be married outside the Church, because the Church would never condone sin. What you can get is approval to be dispensed from the Catholic form of the marriage ceremony. It doesn’t sound like that would be necessary, though - if you’re able to be married in the Church, then you should just be married in the Church. You still have to be validly able to contact marriage. If you are, you could ask your pastor whether your situation constitutes a sufficiently serious reason to be married without having received confirmation and first communion.

If you are ready for marriage, get married in the Church and immigration will be easy (easier of you get married here in my experience). If you are not ready for marriage, doing a civil marriage just to get her in the US is fraudulent. You are 5 years away from a Catholic wedding, you are Catholic, ergo you are 5 years away from being married . You would not consider the civil wedding real, why should the immigration folks when you go for your interview? And if they want, they can get very personal with their questions to see if you are really married. Saying you and your wife don’t have sex because you are waiting 5 years for a Catholic wedding won’t go over well.

 

[Fairwinds]

If you are ready for marriage, get married in the Church and immigration will be easy (easier of you get married here in my experience). If you are not ready for marriage, doing a civil marriage just to get her in the US is fraudulent. You are 5 years away from a Catholic wedding, you are Catholic, ergo you are 5 years away from being married . You would not consider the civil wedding real, why should the immigration folks when you go for your interview? And if they want, they can get very personal with their questions to see if you are really married. Saying you and your wife don’t have sex because you are waiting 5 years for a Catholic wedding won’t go over well.

you wouldn’t believe how personal they get. saying you haven’t consummated the marriage would be a disaster.

 

[tafan]

you wouldn’t believe how personal they get. saying you haven’t consummated the marriage would be a disaster.

And I suspect, if one was to get tagged on a fraudulent immigration marriage now, sponsoring a real wife in 5 or 6 years will be quite difficult.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You guys are right, we should married in church instead. No, no one is paying me to get her a green card, she doesnt gives a damn about me fixing her immigration papers or not.

The reason we want to married is to stop commiting Fornication, attend mass and receive the Eucharist. She was hoping if marrying in Civil, will it be ok for god to have sex without worrying of commiting mortal sin. Since the church says we must not have sex until marriage.
If is not ok in gods eyes, so, there is no point of marrying civil cause we are still be commiting fornication in gods eyes until we married in church. The whole point of marrying is to stop sinning.
At the moment she wont consider church marriage for the reason most of her family lives in California as illegals and there no way her family can attend a religious marriage in Mexico. So, my last option is to pay her to apply for a tourist visa and married in church in Calif.

Thanks for explaining that, its an old conundrum and a difficult place to be in. Neither is there a black and white solution (seeing your priest is a very good start). I personally don’t agree with your set-play resolution of the difficulty as if it automatically covers all cases though.

The whole point of marrying is not really to stop sinning. To marry mainly for avoiding evil (rather than a vocation to do good) is a bit “boxed in”, self-limiting and negative a view of your situation.

Lapses of fornication, in wise and loving circumstances, is not always the end of the world - just like masturbation is not always the end of the world. There is nothing to stop you going to Church. Nor is it the end of the world if you cannot always receive Communion when you do go if you have recenty lapsed (without confession).

For reasons too complicated to explain here my civilly married wife and I regularly went to Church for 10 yrs without Communion before I could get it regularised. It was a “retro-active convalidation” which meant the Church recognised that our vows began at the civil service. Does that mean we were fornicating all that time? Live/grace is more complicated than our simplistic, yet necessary, Sacraments/rules suggest. But always good to observe the formalities. I never once felt the loss of God’s presence in my life despite the fact I was officially a mortal sinner. I did miss Communion but I knew God was pleased I kept Holy the Sabbath all the same. Communion has become very important to me now that I am no longer barred. That 10 year wait was instrumental in increasing my faith and love of Communion.

Your situation is no doubt further complicated by use of contraception (which is wise) given you are not able to maintain the chastity your present state demands. Some would say this makes fornication worse. I disagree in your situation. If we cannot be as perfect as God requires we should at least be as wise as God requires. I believe the Popes have hinted at the necessity of being responsible if we cannot be totally good.

Re Communion you are in a different position. As long as you change your intent (ie decide to try not to fornicate, live apart so you are not tempted etc…and be gentle on yourselves if you do lapse) then you can go to Confession and receive Communion until you may lapse again. Its about being openly and lovingly honest with God about our sins while trying to move above our weaknesses.

In a year or two you may find you two may not be meant to be married…or you will find the strength to be enaged without sinning… or you will be married. Good luck.

 

[aemcpa]

Your situation is no doubt further complicated by use of contraception (which is wise) given you are not able to maintain the chastity your present state demands.

Contraception is intrinsically evil. It is never “wise” to do something that is intrinsically evil.

 

[1ke]

Does that mean we were fornicating all that time?

Yes, actually, it does.

Live/grace is more complicated than our simplistic, yet necessary, Sacraments/rules suggest. But always good to observe the formalities. I never once felt the loss of God’s presence in my life despite the fact I was officially a mortal sinner.

How lucky for you that you were reconciled with the Church and God before you died. I would not want to suggest that anyone presume on God’s grace and continue sinning for 10 years, or 5 years, or any amount of years. Mortal sin cuts us off from God and destines us to Hell. Only repentance and absolution can redirect us back to our heavenly destiny. Grace is indeed important, but should never be taken lightly nor God’s patience and mercy toyed with.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for explaining that, its an old conundrum and a difficult place to be in. Neither is there a black and white solution (seeing your priest is a very good start). I personally don’t agree with your set-play resolution of the difficulty as if it automatically covers all cases though.

I agree, GO SEE THE PRIEST!

Lapses of fornication, in wise and loving circumstances, is not always the end of the world - just like masturbation is not always the end of the world. There is nothing to stop you going to Church. Nor is it the end of the world if you cannot always receive Communion when you do go if you have recently lapsed (without confession).

Masturbation is mortal sin and always wrong. It will be the end of the world if one dies in a state of mortal sin. One would inherit eternal life, just not with God.

For reasons too complicated to explain here my civilly married wife and I regularly went to Church for 10 yrs without Communion before I could get it regularized. It was a “retro-active convalidation” which meant the Church recognized that our vows began at the civil service. Does that mean we were fornicating all that time? Live/grace is more complicated than our simplistic, yet necessary, Sacraments/rules suggest. But always good to observe the formalities. I never once felt the loss of God’s presence in my life despite the fact I was officially a mortal sinner. I did miss Communion but I knew God was pleased I kept Holy the Sabbath all the same. Communion has become very important to me now that I am no longer barred. That 10 year wait was instrumental in increasing my faith and love of Communion.

If you are your civil wife were Catholic and married outside of the Church, then yes, you were fornicating. I’ve never heard that at the time of convalidation, said validation was “retroactive”. Someone else would have to help me with that one. I think what you mean is that the civil marriage is your legal wedding date, but you were sacramentally married on the convalidation date, not the civil date. Your Catholic sacramental marriage starts at the time of convalidation.

Your situation is no doubt further complicated by use of contraception (which is wise) given you are not able to maintain the chastity your present state demands. Some would say this makes fornication worse. I disagree in your situation. If we cannot be as perfect as God requires we should at least be as wise as God requires. I believe the Popes have hinted at the necessity of being responsible if we cannot be totally good.

It is never wise to choose mortal sin to cover for the mistake of mortal sin. I do not understand your advice here. This is very bad advice no matter what you meant.

Re Communion you are in a different position. As long as you change your intent (ie decide to try not to fornicate, live apart so you are not tempted etc…and be gentle on yourselves if you do lapse) then you can go to Confession and receive Communion until you may lapse again. Its about being openly and lovingly honest with God about our sins while trying to move above our weaknesses.

If the intent and effort is genuine, then I would agree, just beware of presumption.

 

[L_Marshall]

As a Catholic, you are obligated to follow the laws of the Church. Because of this, you must be married in the Church. If you are married elsewhere without dispensation from your Bishop, your marriage is defect of substantial form. This means that you are not truly married, because you violated Church law in marrying outside the Church.

Although my knowledge of civil law is even less than my knowledge of Canon Law (which is minuscule, at best), a Church ceremony should fulfill all the civil functions of the marriage as well.

The only problem I can foresee is making sure that you can both complete the necessary requirements (retreat, classes, et c.). If your girlfriend were to fly into the country for a week to complete the retreat, and a few classes you may be able to have all requirements sated.

I would advise you contact your parish priest, or your Diocese’s Tribunal for more information. It may also be worthwhile to consult with an immigration lawyer, to make sure you don’t run into any problems civilly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, actually, it does.

I would not want to suggest that anyone presume on God’s grace and continue sinning for 10 years, or 5 years, or any amount of years. Mortal sin cuts us off from God and destines us to Hell. Only repentance and absolution can redirect us back to our heavenly destiny. Grace is indeed important, but should never be taken lightly nor God’s patience and mercy toyed with.

1ke I agree that mortal sin cuts us off from God.
I do not agree that mortal sin is a readily identifiable ,observable act because by definition it has to be a “human act” involving full consent and understanding which cannot be seen from an armchair.

So we can see “the acts of a man” but can only infer “human acts” (and hence are open to error). I find we Catholics too easily confuse “serious sin” or “grave matter” with “mortal sin.”

Of course one should never be blase about committing acts of grave matter. It is of course wise (and required) to seek confession and keep trying.

We should not be so pessimistic and of so little faith as to assume we are instantly cut off from God when we fall short of heroic strength in avoiding grave sins. If that were true a majority of committed Catholic adolescents would be swinging between heaven and hell a couple of times each month every time they gave way to a hormone storm. I suggest that sort of “lawyer theology” is not mature christianity.

"I would not want to suggest that anyone presume on God’s grace and continue sinning for 10 years"
And yet our civil marriage vows 10 yrs ago were eventually recognised by the Church.
Your comment appears way out of line.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Contraception is intrinsically evil. It is never “wise” to do something that is intrinsically evil.

And yet both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have hinted that, for those already acting irresponsibly it may be the first transitional step towards responsibility and grace.

Have a look at: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8149924/Confusion-over-Popes-condom-views-after-he-says-they-are-acceptable-in-certain-cases.html

I mean no more nor less than what Pope Benedict wisely observed here.

 

[Havard]

And yet both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have hinted that, for those already acting irresponsibly it may be the first transitional step towards responsibility and grace.

Have a look at: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8149924/Confusion-over-Popes-condom-views-after-he-says-they-are-acceptable-in-certain-cases.html

I mean no more nor less than what Pope Benedict wisely observed here.

You are conflating two completely different things. I can observe that fornication with willing partners may be “a step in the right direction” for someone who otherwise commits rape. In no way does that mitigate the sinfulness of fornication.

 

[Lapey]

And yet both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have hinted that, for those already acting irresponsibly it may be the first transitional step towards responsibility and grace.

Have a look at: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8149924/Confusion-over-Popes-condom-views-after-he-says-they-are-acceptable-in-certain-cases.html

I mean no more nor less than what Pope Benedict wisely observed here.

You truly need to consider the context of the statements you are living your spirituality on and also teaching others to live by.

This is not what Pope B16 is referring to at all; the Church and Pope B16 still teaches that contraceptive use as contraceptives is intrinsically evil, which means it is always evil. He was specifically talking about male prostitutes and not any where near the context you place this statement into.

You are dead wrong with your interpretation. This would be like the teachings on birth control pills. When used as artificial birth control they are always wrong; but used as medicinal hormone treatment in the cases of ovarian cists very acceptable. So if your statement about condom use is true, then because ABC pills can be used sometime then the Church no longer holds this as evil. You would be wrong again.

Bottom line, if you want to advise, teach, lead, or do any such counseling as a Catholic to Catholic as this case is, be very leery of the truth; be even more leery about what is thought to be “truth”. There is only one truth and it is not opinion and it is held by Mother Church not in our thoughts about what is said.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are conflating two completely different things. I can observe that fornication with willing partners may be “a step in the right direction” for someone who otherwise commits rape. In no way does that mitigate the sinfulness of fornication.

Havard I think you need to tease out for yourself what you really mean by “sinfulness of fornication.”

As I have suggested above this colloquial expression actually has two theological meanings that are conflated together which makes discussion difficult.

First it can mean the gravity of the outward action. Second it can refer to how imputable it actually is to the unique individual involved in his unique life-circumstances (which may range from mortal to neutral before God if one was, for example, sleep-walking).

Harvard the point I am making here is not primarily the outward “sinfulness” (the outward matter/gravity of a human act). That is a given, it is serious and grave as you say.

The issue is one of wise conduct (given someone is already regularly involved in grave matter) and growth in grace and responsibility. There is absolutely no intrinsic reason why persons caught up in common human weakness (of will or mature understanding) cannot remain in a state of grace and be sinning venially.

If one is wisely moving from serious irresponsibility to lesser irresponsibility that is responding to grace even if outwardly one is still caught up in grave matter. There are degrees of gravity and seriousness. Only in person-less theoretical moral textbooks are things clear-cut and black and white. Life in grace is far more complex.

 

[aemcpa]

If one is wisely moving from serious irresponsibility to lesser irresponsibility that is responding to grace even if outwardly one is still caught up in grave matter. There are degrees of gravity and seriousness. Only in person-less theoretical moral textbooks are things clear-cut and black and white. Life in grace is far more complex.

Sounds to me like blatant rationalization.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You truly need to consider the context of the statements you are living your spirituality on and also teaching others to live by.

This is not what Pope B16 is referring to at all; the Church and Pope B16 still teaches that contraceptive use as contraceptives is intrinsically evil, which means it is always evil. He was specifically talking about male prostitutes and not any where near the context you place this statement into.

You are dead wrong with your interpretation. This would be like the teachings on birth control pills. When used as artificial birth control they are always wrong; but used as medicinal hormone treatment in the cases of ovarian cists very acceptable. So if your statement about condom use is true, then because ABC pills can be used sometime then the Church no longer holds this as evil. You would be wrong again.

Bottom line, if you want to advise, teach, lead, or do any such counseling as a Catholic to Catholic as this case is, be very leery of the truth; be even more leery about what is thought to be “truth”. There is only one truth and it is not opinion and it is held by Mother Church not in our thoughts about what is said.

Lapey, as I stated, I mean no more or less than the Pope meant.
Let the Pope’s words speak for themselves. Readers are big enough and ugly enough to take it further if they wish.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, as I stated, I mean no more or less than the Pope meant.
Let the Pope’s words speak for themselves. Readers are big enough and ugly enough to take it further if they wish.

You are misusing the pope’s words and adding meaning to them, this is not what he meant. This is a grave error on your part. You can say whatever you like your words to mean but that does not make it so.