Should Church marry unrepentant cohabiters?

[tee_eff_em]

And to throw in my :twocents: to the marriage preparation discussion, I too was involved in pre-marriage ministry for a number of years.

What are we thinking!? We require candidates for priesthood to attend *years *of schooling before they may be ordained, yet we expect couples to be prepared for marriage after a mere 44-hour retreat, or 8 weeks of Wednesday night classes, or day of recollection (or what have you)!?!?

Well, that’s not quite true. We expect couples to be formed for marriage primarily by their first teachers: Eighteen, twenty, or more years in the bosom of their parents and family. (And we all know the state of the family in the US today)

:twocents:
When we *really *want to reform marriage preparation, we will need begin with the New Evangelization and repairing the poor catechesis received by generations of Catholics.
:twocents:

tee

 

[commenter]

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/I] reveal that they do not and will not intend to marry (through simulation, for example), then that is a different story.

Dan

I now read post 29, and yes, he does address some of my issues in his first para. Sorry I was not attentive to it earlier.

I had not understood “unrepentant” as referring to Confession. I meant it, well, some doctors won’t accept a new patient who is a smoker, smokes indoors, and refuses to consider any efforts to attempt to quit; i. e. an “unrepentant” smoker. But the doctor would accept a patient who is willing to at least try to quit; even if they fail.

I highlighted wording in your post which my inattentive eye had not caught earlier in the thread.

More spiritual bitcoins for your consultation, and Jeff’s.

 

[Horton]

And to throw in my :twocents: to the marriage preparation discussion, I too was involved in pre-marriage ministry for a number of years.

What are we thinking!? We require candidates for priesthood to attend *years *of schooling before they may be ordained, yet we expect couples to be prepared for marriage after a mere 44-hour retreat, or 8 weeks of Wednesday night classes, or day of recollection (or what have you)!?!?

Well, that’s not quite true. We expect couples to be formed for marriage primarily by their first teachers: Eighteen, twenty, or more years in the bosom of their parents and family. (And we all know the state of the family in the US today)

**:twocents:
When we *really ***want to reform marriage preparation, we will need begin with the New Evangelization and repairing the poor catechesis received by generations of Catholics.
:twocents:

tee

This^^^

 

[deaconjohnO]

When I am asked by a couple to witness their marriage I require that I am the person doing the marriage prep. Early on in the process I ascertain their situation and inform them of the Church’s teaching. After I do this I ask their intent and whether they have respect for the teachings of the Church on the matter. I have never had a couple bluntly tell me that they disagreed with the moral stance cohabitation and sexual activity outside of marriage.

With that in mind I think folks here need to realize that Clerics can on their own initiative decline participation in the marriage process of inquiring couples. I know clerics who have declined their “services” in witnessing a marriage.

 

[BobCatholic]

YES

There are 2 ways for such a couple to lay off the sin of fornication:

• 
  *]Separate.
  *]Become married!
  
  Why would anyone want to encourage them to persist in sin!?!?
  
  tee

• 
  Marriage is not the solution to fornication.
  
  Cohabitation has an 80% divorce rate.
  
  They’re going from the frying pan to the fire!
  
  So they replace one sin with another! God says “I hate divorce”

 

[Gorgias]

When I am asked by a couple to witness their marriage I require that I am the person doing the marriage prep. Early on in the process I ascertain their situation and inform them of the Church’s teaching. After I do this I ask their intent and whether they have respect for the teachings of the Church on the matter. I have never had a couple bluntly tell me that they disagreed with the moral stance cohabitation and sexual activity outside of marriage.

Of course they don’t! Do you think they’re stupid?!?

No, they just smile and tell you what they think you want to hear – that they completely agree with everything the Church proposes – and then they jump back in their car and head for the home they share… :sad_yes:

(On the other hand, do you let them do the paperwork separately, so they have the chance to both (independently) write down their shared address? Or ask them what their home (not cell) phone number is?) Those are the questions that suss out the folks who are just telling you what you want to hear… )

With that in mind I think folks here need to realize that Clerics can on their own initiative decline participation in the marriage process of inquiring couples.

I know clerics who have declined their “services” in witnessing a marriage.

That’s of dubious merit, vis-a-vis the canons. Those who aren’t prohibited are able to contract marriage, and they should be getting married in their own parish church.

 

[Padres1969]

Marriage is not the solution to fornication.

Cohabitation has an 80% divorce rate.

They’re going from the frying pan to the fire!

So they replace one sin with another! God says “I hate divorce”

Where do you get that 80% divorce rate?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Marriage is not the solution to fornication.

Cohabitation has an 80% divorce rate.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc ergo invalido!?

Does a marriage ending in divorce prove the marriage was invalid?

:nope:
tee

 

[BobCatholic]

Where do you get that 80% divorce rate?

loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2009/06/study-shows-divorce-rate-of.html

Post hoc ergo propter hoc ergo invalido!?

Does a marriage ending in divorce prove the marriage was invalid?

:nope:
tee

I didn’t say anything like that.

What I said was that couples who shack up are so selfish that marriage is not going to solve that - divorce is almost guaranteed because selfishness is the #1 cause of divorce.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc ergo invalido!?

Does a marriage ending in divorce prove the marriage was invalid?

:nope:

I didn’t say anything like that.

What I said was that couples who shack up are so selfish that marriage is not going to solve that - divorce is almost guaranteed because selfishness is the #1 cause of divorce.

No, you said:

Marriage is not the solution to fornication.

And, with due respect, you were wrong.

Watch:

Unmarried man, M, and unmarried woman, W, are having carnal relations. They are objectively committing the sin of fornication.

*M *and *W *become married to each other. *M *and *W *have carnal relations.
Do you mean to tell me that they are *now *committing fornication?

*Even *if *M *and *W *should divorce (which is not guaranteed).
Do you mean to tell me that they are *now *committing fornication?

I repeat: A couple may lay off the sin of fornication by becoming married. No future hypotheticals can change that.

tee
Reminder, for the heck of it: tee_eff_em is Not a Canon Lawyer

 

[Oneofthewomen]

A story from my diocese that is very relevant to this conversation.

I can only pray that this is how it will soon be done everywhere!!

catholiccourier.com/regional-life/livingston/features/parish-embraces-young-family/

 

[BobCatholic]

No, you said:

And, with due respect, you were wrong.

Watch:

Unmarried man, M, and unmarried woman, W, are having carnal relations. They are objectively committing the sin of fornication.

*M *and *W *become married to each other. *M *and *W *have carnal relations.
Do you mean to tell me that they are *now *committing fornication?

*Even *if *M *and *W *should divorce (which is not guaranteed).
Do you mean to tell me that they are *now *committing fornication?

I repeat: A couple may lay off the sin of fornication by becoming married. No future hypotheticals can change that.

tee
Reminder, for the heck of it: tee_eff_em is Not a Canon Lawyer

Your example violates the rule that one does not do evil so good may occur.

The evil is: Entering a marriage that is doomed to divorce. God hates divorce! (Malachi 2:16)

Think of it this way.

A car thief steals cars and goes joyriding. The solution is for him to buy a car.

But the car thief is 10 years old. He can’t drive, nor does he have the ability to get a license. Nor does he have the ability to take driving lessons. He’s not qualified to drive, nor to own a car.

So go ahead, give the kid a car, he’s guaranteed to crash it.

The solution to theft is to stop stealing, not give the thief what he wants.

Couples that are cohabiting are NOT QUALIFIED to marry. Cohabitation is selfish, and selfishness kills marriages.

The solution to fornication is to stop fornicating! Not getting married.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Couples that are cohabiting are NOT QUALIFIED to marry. Cohabitation is selfish, and selfishness kills marriages.

I’m sorry, Bob, but that’s such a black-and-white perspective that it really fails to appreciate reality. Not all of life fits into a neat and tidy box.

Lots of people began cohabitating before any sort of sincere conversion may have taken place. What should be done once they repent of any sin and seek to rectify their situation? Force them to move out? Fine. And if that’s not possible? What then? Tell them to take a hike because they’re selfish, doomed to become divorced, and are utterly not qualified to marry? Maybe throw them out of Church altogether and tell them they’re gross and disgusting sinners who should be ashamed of themselves?

Sorry, dude. That’s ridiculous.

The solution to fornication is to stop fornicating! Not getting married.

Wanting to avoid the sin of fornication is one of the main reasons faithful Catholics get married in the first place! They love their partner, and they want to have sex with them. There’s an implicit desire to do precisely what you suggest is an evil in every valid marriage, therefore.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Your example violates the rule that one does not do evil so good may occur.

You EquateThe Administration of The Sacraments of God with the Commission of Evil!?!?

Color me Agog!

tee

 

[dans0622]

…
Couples that are cohabiting are NOT QUALIFIED to marry.
…

Hello,

I can understand why you would say this–we all have our opinions about who is “qualified” to marry. As a matter of fact, though, being “qualified” is a legal notion and it is the law which determines who is (or is not) qualified. This is done through the establishment of “impediments.” Cohabiting before marriage, even if not repented, is not an impediment.

Now, as I said earlier, if a person manifests an intention contrary to marriage or some other defect which makes it clear that he will not actually consent to marriage, then the Church’s minister is justified in delaying/denying the wedding. That’s a matter of consent, though, not “qualification.”

Dan

 

[Padres1969]

loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2009/06/study-shows-divorce-rate-of.html

I didn’t say anything like that.

What I said was that couples who shack up are so selfish that marriage is not going to solve that - divorce is almost guaranteed because selfishness is the #1 cause of divorce.

As I suspected…

 

[larsont7]

The issue I see with the title of this thread is that it is too vague. The question should rather be, “should the Church marry individuals who are not in a state of grace?” Unfortunately, this is where the issue becomes more difficult, as it comes down to the judgment of the presiding priest whether or not the individual(s) are in a state of grace.

I think if the priest can determine that a couple is living in a persistent state of mortal sin (i.e.- the couple confirms they are living together and having marital relations and have no desire to confess or amend their situation), then he absolutely has the right to not marry the couple. This would be true of any persistent state of mortal sin, not just cohabitation. It could include an unrepentant murderer in prison who wishes to marry, or a pro-choice politician who refuses to follow the teachings of the Church on abortion.

However, if the couple promises as best they can to live together as brother and sister for the remainder of their engagement, then allowances could be made for them to wed. I’m not sure if anyone has posted this or not, but Fr. Edward McNamara wrote a good article on EWTN about this issue: ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur230.htm

Here is an excerpt from the article (bolded emphasis mine):

Marriage, just like confirmation, Eucharist, holy orders and, whenever possible, anointing of the sick, require the state of grace for their fruitful reception.

With respect to validity, however, someone who is married while in a state of mortal sin may be validly married (as they would be validly confirmed, ordained, or validly celebrate Mass). But he/she would not receive the grace proper to this sacrament and indeed commits a further grave sin of sacrilege and renders the sacrament objectively illicit.

Such a state hardly augurs well for future marital bliss. It is therefore of utmost pastoral concern that couples be prepared in such a way that they clearly understand the beauty of Catholic teaching regarding pre-nuptial chastity, sincerely repent of any sins they may have committed, and seek the sacrament of reconciliation so as to enter into marriage in the state of grace.

 

[OraLabora]

Your example violates the rule that one does not do evil so good may occur.

The evil is: Entering a marriage that is doomed to divorce. God hates divorce! (Malachi 2:16).

I was an unrepentant cohabitor for two years. Then we entered a civil marriage. Then I came back to the Church 9 years later. Then my wife was baptized in the Anglican Church. Then we had our marriage convalidated.

30 years later, we are still together and still very much in love. And I know we are not alone. Yet many folks who start out in a valid marriage end up separating.

You speak nonsense. Ask any monk: conversion is a life-long process. As has been pointed out to you, life is not always black and white. You can no more say that a cohabiting couple that undergoes conversion is any more likely to divorce than a couple marrying validly from the start. I know one “unrepentant cohabitor” that had his marriage convalidated at age 64, many years and one adult child later, and I know one married former colleague whose wife ran off with her boss leaving him to care for their infant child.

Of course at some point, the unrepentant cohabitor that seeks marriage is repenting. If unrepentant, they would remain unmarried. Any good marriage prep process should identify those marrying just for show. We underwent such an examination before convalidation. Our intentions were clear to our priest.

Your arguments hold no logical water.

 

[BobCatholic]

I was an unrepentant cohabitor for two years. Then we entered a civil marriage. Then I came back to the Church 9 years later. Then my wife was baptized in the Anglican Church. Then we had our marriage convalidated.

30 years later, we are still together and still very much in love. And I know we are not alone. Yet many folks who start out in a valid marriage end up separating.

You speak nonsense. Ask any monk: conversion is a life-long process. As has been pointed out to you, life is not always black and white. You can no more say that a cohabiting couple that undergoes conversion is any more likely to divorce than a couple marrying validly from the start. I know one “unrepentant cohabitor” that had his marriage convalidated at age 64, many years and one adult child later, and I know one married former colleague whose wife ran off with her boss leaving him to care for their infant child.

Of course at some point, the unrepentant cohabitor that seeks marriage is repenting. If unrepentant, they would remain unmarried. Any good marriage prep process should identify those marrying just for show. We underwent such an examination before convalidation. Our intentions were clear to our priest.

Your arguments hold no logical water.

And you are one of the 20% who didn’t divorce.

Since you had the grace and cooperated with it, you made it work.

The 80% who divorce didn’t.

Every disaster has survivors. This does not mean we should encourage disasters.

 

[OraLabora]

Every disaster has survivors. This does not mean we should encourage disasters.

Nor does it mean we should discourage those attempting to survive disasters, even those of their own making.

When the Titanic went down, nearly 70% of those on board went to the bottom with her. That didn’t stop rescuing the remainder in spite of the difficulties. The Church is in the business of rescuing souls, and even one soul is too precious to lose. Hence the parable of the 99 sheep and the shepherd setting out to rescue the one lost.

Have you read Amoris Laetitia? If not I recommend it; your thinking is clearly not that of the Holy Father.