T
- Status
P
Phemie
Guest
Don’t understand why you’re upset that a deacon is being frank about how people here react to his comments.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Currently none. But then none of the unmarried couple I know currently are Catholic so to their mind there’s nothing wrong with living together and having relations. Heck some of them aren’t even inclined to ever marry anyway since they don’t see the point.
That said, I mentioned 4 nominally Catholic couples I knew in an earlier post and I’m pretty sure one of them while sometimes cohabitating did not have relations with each other until after they married. Obviously I didn’t keep tabs on what they were doing during the times they were cohabitating as that would have been creepy. But I take them at their word based on what I do know about them.
So it is possible. As I said, living together should not automatically be assumed to also imply sexual relations. Because on the flip side, I’ve known plenty of couples who maintained separate residences who were as voracious as spider monkeys when it came to sexual matters and quite open about it.
P
Phemie
Guest
Oops, meant to say canon lawyer, not deacon. Sorry.
D
dans0622
Guest
Right, I’m not a deacon. But, maybe I should change that. That way, I can post as a deacon and…!
Dan
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Well, what Dan writes is exactly the truth.
It applies not only when you are a canon lawyer…it applies on this site when you are a priest and a long time theology professor as well.
Unlike Dan, I don’t find it great fun. I do find it, to use your word, “disgusting,” above all when it quickly becomes evident that the person trying to argue an unsustainable position has no basis to even attempt to argue, so lacking are they in the most rudimentary knowledge…let alone the knowledge that would come with having successfully completed even a basic course of study in the field they are trying to hold forth in.
P
Phemie
Guest
D
dans0622
Guest
Give it about 5 more years, father…it took about that long for me to just say what I want to say and leave it at that. Not always easy, though.
Dan
P
pianistclare
Guest
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Just so you know; I am not questioning canon law regarding marriage at all. Sorry if anyone got that impression.
I was just pointing out some possible negative effects on other Catholics, who may feel less motivated to counter secular norms, if they don’t feel supported by the Church.
And it seems many Catholics have had that response to the current Pope’s focus on mercy for sinners. “What’s the point of even trying to do the right thing, then? Others can sin as much as they want, and be forgiven, anyway”.
I know that’s not theologically sound, but people do feel that way, and some even leave the Church for the SSPX, Orthodoxy, etc. Sure, we don’t want to drive sinners away. But doesn’t that also include those Catholics who have a more harsh attitude toward sinners, who one could argue are guilty of the sin of pride. Sometimes I get the sense that the Pope doesn’t care as much about driving that type of sinner away.
I was just pointing out some possible negative effects on other Catholics, who may feel less motivated to counter secular norms, if they don’t feel supported by the Church.
And it seems many Catholics have had that response to the current Pope’s focus on mercy for sinners. “What’s the point of even trying to do the right thing, then? Others can sin as much as they want, and be forgiven, anyway”.
I know that’s not theologically sound, but people do feel that way, and some even leave the Church for the SSPX, Orthodoxy, etc. Sure, we don’t want to drive sinners away. But doesn’t that also include those Catholics who have a more harsh attitude toward sinners, who one could argue are guilty of the sin of pride. Sometimes I get the sense that the Pope doesn’t care as much about driving that type of sinner away.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Actually, I find that not unlike what we read in the Gospel: the solicitude of Jesus for the prostitutes and the tax collectors; he warned the pharisees that such as those were entering the Kingdom ahead of them.
On the other hand, He had choice things to say about the self-righteous…as demonstrated by the encounter of the Publican and the Pharisee . One left the prayer heard and the other did not…in spite of all that the pharisee did. To say nothing of the the parable of the Good Samaritan.
As a priest now retired, I find Pope Francis to be an ever more remarkable gift to the Church with each passing day.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I can echo from my own pastoral experience what you have experienced, Deacon.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I agree with both of your statements.This, my dear Deacon, is the $64K question!
Based on many posts here at CAF, making it worse seems to be the more popular option.
So sad, considering our Holy Father has spoken out against the attitude that the Church and her Sacraments should be a “reward” for only the most holy.
A
AKDee
Guest
This would surprise me. How would that explain marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic? My fiance is not Catholic. He cannot partake of the sacrament of reconciliation prior to our marriage, therefore he cannot be in a state of grace. At least not in the regular method. And yet my priest is willing to marry us, in the Church. It seems like if my priest is willing to do that, that the sacrament must be valid. Perhaps my fiance or even both of us will not receive all the graces we would receive if both of us were in a state of grace at the time we are married, but it’s still going to be a valid marriage is my understanding.
1
1ke
Guest
State of grace does not determine validity,
P
powerofk
Guest
IIRC, no, the sacrament is not invalid; however, a person will not receive the graces from the sacrament until he or she is in a state of grace. Only 3 sacraments bestow grace on someone not in a state of grace - baptism, reconciliation, and anointing of the sick (if the situation is so grave that the person receiving anointing cannot confess his/her sins). Note - all three of these sacraments bestow grace and remove sins. All other sacraments bestow additional graces on people already in a state of grace (and the only sacrament we are explicitly to not receive if not in a state of grace is the Eucharist, as to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is itself a mortal sin). Regardless, though, the graces of Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, and Holy Orders can only be obtained while a person is in a state of grace. If he/she is in a state of mortal sin while receiving Confirmation or while entering into the sacraments of Matrimony or Orders, then the person will not benefit from the graces of these sacraments until he/she has made a good Confession. But the sacraments themselves are still valid, as long as the proper form and materials have been used, the proper minister has conferred the sacrament, and the persons receiving or entering into the sacrament do so willingly.
By the way, Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are lifelong sacraments. Though the vows are exchanged formally only once, it is more appropriate to state that a couple (for marriage)/man (for orders) enters into these sacraments instead of simply receiving them. Why? Because both sacraments insist on continual renewal of vows. Any time a married couple has sex (or even makes a decision together), they renew their vows to each other. In addition, any time a man puts his wife’s needs ahead of his own or a woman puts her husband’s needs ahead of her own, a couple’s vows are renewed. Any time a priest administers or witnesses to any sacrament, especially when confecting the Eucharist, he renews his vows to the Church, and whenever he obeys an order from his bishop, he renews his vow of obedience to the bishop.
C
commenter
Guest
Deacon,
Congratulations on your daughter’s wedding. I am retired, 2 heavy volunteer jobs, in both I interact extensively with a Permanent Deacon, your ministry is appreciated. My own son was cohabitating, prior to his wedding last year.
Your posts represent a track record of credibility. On this topic, I am unsure if I fully agree with you.
We all appreciate Christ’s words “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, but we all forget the words “Go and sin no more”. By today’s standards, Christ would be denounced for saying **those **words, for making her feel bad, for being judgemental, for insensitively bringing up catechesis at what would have been an incredibly stressful time for her. I can imagine how religious bloggers would trash Jesus for saying that latter phrase.
I’m obese. My doctor doesn’t condemn me for my past sins(?) of overeating. But he does try to modify my behavior in the present. He provides encouragement and information.
People are perhaps forgetting the word “unrepentant” in the thread title. Does the Church, in the marriage preparation process, have any responsibility to provide information or encouragement towards modifying behavior? Are there any grounds today for urging people to postpone a wedding until changes are made, or until there is a better understanding? Do **all **couples who are opposite sex, attend a 2 hour class, and include a baptized Catholic, get married on demand in your diocese?
I don’t mean to emphasize the moral aspects of cohabitating, but the aspects of unrepentance. Obviously the Church has some responsibility towards assessing the readiness of the couple for this sacrament. Some would consider it a red flag for readiness if a couple rejects or maybe is unaware of one aspect of Christian morality. Temptation to sexual sins does not disappear when people get married - especially considering the “unrepentant” part.
Congratulations on your daughter’s wedding. I am retired, 2 heavy volunteer jobs, in both I interact extensively with a Permanent Deacon, your ministry is appreciated. My own son was cohabitating, prior to his wedding last year.
Your posts represent a track record of credibility. On this topic, I am unsure if I fully agree with you.
We all appreciate Christ’s words “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, but we all forget the words “Go and sin no more”. By today’s standards, Christ would be denounced for saying **those **words, for making her feel bad, for being judgemental, for insensitively bringing up catechesis at what would have been an incredibly stressful time for her. I can imagine how religious bloggers would trash Jesus for saying that latter phrase.
I’m obese. My doctor doesn’t condemn me for my past sins(?) of overeating. But he does try to modify my behavior in the present. He provides encouragement and information.
People are perhaps forgetting the word “unrepentant” in the thread title. Does the Church, in the marriage preparation process, have any responsibility to provide information or encouragement towards modifying behavior? Are there any grounds today for urging people to postpone a wedding until changes are made, or until there is a better understanding? Do **all **couples who are opposite sex, attend a 2 hour class, and include a baptized Catholic, get married on demand in your diocese?
I don’t mean to emphasize the moral aspects of cohabitating, but the aspects of unrepentance. Obviously the Church has some responsibility towards assessing the readiness of the couple for this sacrament. Some would consider it a red flag for readiness if a couple rejects or maybe is unaware of one aspect of Christian morality. Temptation to sexual sins does not disappear when people get married - especially considering the “unrepentant” part.
D
dans0622
Guest
While we await Deacon Jeff’s answer, I think he addressed some of what you bring up in his rubrical answers in post #29.
Personally, I understood “unrepentant” to mean a refusal to go to Confession. Certainly, pastoral ministers should encourage and educate but if those pastoral efforts do not result in a decision to repent in Confession, this, in itself, is not reason enough to refuse to allow the wedding.
If attempts to educate and form the couple reveal that they do not and will not intend to marry (through simulation, for example), then that is a different story.
Dan
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
[At the risk of inspiring another tempest in a tee-pot
]I AM NOT A CANON LAWYER
Concur. While I believe there is some canonical advice that a pastor may *delay *the sacrament, in the cause of justice I do not believe that delay may be *indefinite *nor be contingent on some ultimatum (eg “You may not marry until you have lived apart for 6 months”).
As the learned Canon Lawyer points out, though there may exist a kind of severe impenitence, I would not say the Church should refuse marriage on that account, but rather on the underlying condition (eg that the couple positively intends on a simulation of the sacrament, to use my learned friend’s example).
In the case of, if I may call it such, *ordinary *impenitence, I believe the couple’s seeking the sacrament is itself a sign of the beginnings (at least) of repentance.
(Much like, to harken to another prior example, an obese person may exhibit “impenitence” not only by over-eating, but also by avoiding doctor visits for many years. But when that person does approach the doctor and inquire *“I’d really like to get into shape” *he is exhibiting the first signs of “repentance”)
tee
- Status