Should Church marry unrepentant cohabiters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nor does it mean we should discourage those attempting to survive disasters, even those of their own making.
This is exactly what I’m saying.

The solution to the sin of fornication is to stop fornicating. Marriage is not a solution to this.

If a couple is cohabiting, then they need to stop. They need to stop fornicating and be able to relate to each other in a non-sexual way. Why should an activity that comprises less than 1% of life be the dominant reason people sin and stick around? If there’s nothing in the relationship outside of sex, game over.

Either Christ is the Lord or the pelvis is.
 
The solution to the sin of fornication is to stop fornicating. Marriage is not a solution to this.
Yes.
It.
Is.


Fornicating couple => Becomes married => Not fornicating any more => The End

Marriage does not render a couple impeccable, nor am I arguing such, nor should anyone else. Your non-fornicating married couple could be “part of the 20%”, and remain married until death does them part. They could also keep other Gods before Him, use the name of God in vain, never set foot in a church again, dishonor their parents, murder, steal, bear false witness, and covet every possession real or imagined of their neighbor (not to mention the neighbors themselves) – But they are NOT FORNICATING – That’s done.

Sheesh :rolleyes:
tee
Repeat: Married Sinner
 
Yes.
It.
Is.


Fornicating couple => Becomes married => Not fornicating any more => The End
Nope.

Now they’re in an invalid or illicit marriage (since they don’t know what marriage is about) - replacing one sin with another, with an 80% chance of divorce, and a third sin right around the corner. And if they didn’t confess their cohabitation in the sacrament of penance (AHEM! THEY ARE UNREPENTANT!!), the sacrament of marriage is celebrated in mortal sin (this is yet another sin) and taking Eucharist in mortal sin (another sin)…

Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding! If they go to City Hall, another sin…

Replacing one sin with another and another and another… is not a solution for sin!

First, stop cohabiting. Even for a few months. Then go to confession and marry.

Cohabiting is the attempt to take all the benefits of marriage without taking any of the responsibilities of it. Of course, it is fake, since legally there is “palimony” in many states.

This attitude is the wrong attitude to bring into a marriage. This attitude is hyper-selfishness and is incompatible with marriage. That’s why 80% of those marriages go flushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…

Yes, Paul said it is better to marry than to “burn” - but he didn’t say cohabit!

**Remember, the thread is about UNREPENTANT cohabitors! THIS IS WHAT MY POINT IS ABOUT. **

If you’re bringing REPENTANT cohabitors into the discussion, you’re not paying attention to what I’m saying.
 
Nope.

Now they’re in an invalid or illicit marriage (since they don’t know what marriage is about) - replacing one sin with another, with an 80% chance of divorce, and a third sin right around the corner. And if they didn’t confess their cohabitation in the sacrament of penance (AHEM! THEY ARE UNREPENTANT!!), the sacrament of marriage is celebrated in mortal sin (this is yet another sin) and taking Eucharist in mortal sin (another sin)…

Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding! If they go to City Hall, another sin…

Replacing one sin with another and another and another… is not a solution for sin!

First, stop cohabiting. Even for a few months. Then go to confession and marry.

Cohabiting is the attempt to take all the benefits of marriage without taking any of the responsibilities of it. Of course, it is fake, since legally there is “palimony” in many states.

This attitude is the wrong attitude to bring into a marriage. This attitude is hyper-selfishness and is incompatible with marriage. That’s why 80% of those marriages go flushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…

Yes, Paul said it is better to marry than to “burn” - but he didn’t say cohabit!

**Remember, the thread is about UNREPENTANT cohabitors! THIS IS WHAT MY POINT IS ABOUT. **

If you’re bringing REPENTANT cohabitors into the discussion, you’re not paying attention to what I’m saying.
If the couple marries with Catholic Church approval, even though continuing without sanctifying grace, then at least the sin of fornication is no longer occurring.
 
If the couple marries with Catholic Church approval, even though continuing without sanctifying grace, then at least the sin of fornication is no longer occurring.
I think you didn’t read my post. Read the key parts below.
And if they didn’t confess their cohabitation in the sacrament of penance (AHEM! THEY ARE UNREPENTANT!!), the sacrament of marriage is celebrated in mortal sin (this is yet another sin) and taking Eucharist in mortal sin (another sin)…
Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding! If they go to City Hall, another sin…
Replacing one sin with another and another and another… is not a solution for sin!
**Remember, the thread is about UNREPENTANT cohabitors! THIS IS WHAT MY POINT IS ABOUT. **
What was that moral principle? One should not do evil to do good? Why should one sin (and possibly many times) to avoid another sin?

The Church should marry REPENTANT cohabitors. But not the UNREPENTANT.

If one does not take the sacrament seriously enough to celebrate it the way it is supposed to be done, then it should not be celebrated.

Would you say “celebrate the Eucharist in mortal sin?” Or "get confirmed by a woman bishop? Nope.
 
Yes, Paul said it is better to marry than to “burn” - but he didn’t say cohabit!
And, to the best of my recollection, no one here (certainly not I) is saying “Cohabit without the benefit of marriage”.

I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I will say it anyway:
Now they’re in an invalid or illicit marriage
Show. Me . The Law.

(HINT:
(since they don’t know what marriage is about)
No one here is competent to judge this.

If you would establish it as a premise then I would request: Please keep your strawman out of this)

tee
 
And, to the best of my recollection, no one here (certainly not I) is saying “Cohabit without the benefit of marriage”.

I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I will say it anyway:

Show. Me . The Law.

(HINT:

No one here is competent to judge this.

If you would establish it as a premise then I would request: Please keep your strawmnn out of this)

tee
OK, fine. You don’t have to accept my opinion in those parts.

What about my other points? No strawmen in this!

If a cohabitor is UNREPENTANT they didn’t go to confession prior to the wedding and confess their cohabitation.

They celebrate the wedding in mortal sin (this is a mortal sin)

They celebrate the Eucharist in mortal sin (another mortal sin!)

Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding!

If they go to City Hall or another marriage minister without a dispensation, another sin…

Seriously.

**Where does the Church say it is OK to commit one (or more sins) to avoid commit the sin of fornication? **

For REPENTANT cohabitors none of the above apply so I’m not dealing with them, I have no objection to them getting married.

But UNREPENTANT cohabitors? NO!
 
OK, fine. You don’t have to accept my opinion in those parts.

What about my other points? No strawmen in this!

If a cohabitor is UNREPENTANT they didn’t go to confession prior to the wedding and confess their cohabitation.

They celebrate the wedding in mortal sin (this is a mortal sin)

They celebrate the Eucharist in mortal sin (another mortal sin!)

Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding!

If they go to City Hall or another marriage minister without a dispensation, another sin…

Seriously.

**Where does the Church say it is OK to commit one (or more sins) to avoid commit the sin of fornication? **

For REPENTANT cohabitors none of the above apply so I’m not dealing with them, I have no objection to them getting married.

But UNREPENTANT cohabitors? NO!
Mortal sin requires 3 things: it’s grave, you know it’s grave, you do it anyway.

Most people today don’t think living together without benefit of marriage is a grave matter. Most would not consider it a sin so would see no reason to confess it. That’s because catechesis is entirely lacking and some of us parents (I count myself in that number) have done a lousy job of imparting the meaning of the 10 commandments to our now-adult children.

Even when I was at university many moons ago I was told by my peers that since I was unmarried I could only have broken 9 of the 10 commandments because nobody in my peer group had ever been taught that “Thou shall not commit adultery” meant more than just cheating on your spouse.

That said, how can the priest know if they are unrepentant? He can’t force them to confess to him and even if they said that to him within the sacrament of penance he can’t do anything about it.
 

If a cohabitor is UNREPENTANT they didn’t go to confession prior to the wedding and confess their cohabitation.

They celebrate the wedding in mortal sin (this is a mortal sin)

They celebrate the Eucharist in mortal sin (another mortal sin!)

Of course, I assume this is a Church wedding!

If they go to City Hall or another marriage minister without a dispensation, another sin…

The merry-go-round is operating at top speed here but I’ll jump on anyway.

As you show in the last comment above, your course of action would result in the couple (who, as we have stipulated, are “unrepentant”) continuing in that sin. Either they will not marry in any sense (and most likely not return to that parish or maybe any parish) or they will go to city hall and contract a civil union (and most likely not return to that parish or any parish).

If the couple are willing and able to marry in the Church (i.e., have the appropriate knowledge and intentions regarding marriage), they are obliged to do so. By that, I mean that they are obliged to follow the Church’s law regarding the form for marriage. The Church’s ministers have an obligation to allow such people to marry in the Church. Once married, the grievous sin of fornication would cease.

Yes, you are correct that the couple has other obligations as far as fruitful reception of Sacraments. Just as is the case for making marriage available, priests are obliged to make it possible for them to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Confession.

Just as in the case of marriage, the Church does not force the issue: if they are willing to confess, hear the confession. If they are willing to marry, allow the marriage.

Dan
 
That said, how can the priest know if they are unrepentant?
Application for marriage has the same address for both.

One or the other brag that they live together and say there’s nothing wrong with it

Attempts to educate them on the Church’s teaching about cohabitation leads to one or both having a dismissive attitude.

When both go to confession with the priest as part of their marriage prep, they don’t mention the cohabitation.

And remember Padre Pio would be telling penitents “don’t forget to confess this…” so the priest could recommend confessing this during the sacrament (and if they refuse, what does that say about their repentance?)

Yes, the priest can’t FORCE them to confess this. But if they don’t, what do you think that says about their repentance?

You’re trying very hard to push the envelope on how blind the priest is about spotting things. The unrepentant couple doesn’t care and are almost in your face about it.
 
As you show in the last comment above, your course of action would result in the couple (who, as we have stipulated, are “unrepentant”) continuing in that sin.
Right.

Unrepentant people do that.

Unless they are convinced to repent.

Of course, this is more likely to happen:
Unrepentant couple approaches priest. Priest spots the problem. Priest points out the problem and says they should repent. Unrepentant couple walk out the door and finds another priest, minister, JP or someone who won’t talk about that R-word.
If the couple are willing and able to marry in the Church (i.e., have the appropriate knowledge and intentions regarding marriage), they are obliged to do so.
This implies repentance. Such a couple is not what we are talking about.
 
Application for marriage has the same address for both.

One or the other brag that they live together and say there’s nothing wrong with it

Attempts to educate them on the Church’s teaching about cohabitation leads to one or both having a dismissive attitude.

When both go to confession with the priest as part of their marriage prep, they don’t mention the cohabitation.
And when they both go to confession to a priest(s) other than their officiant.

tee
 
I think you didn’t read my post. Read the key parts below.

What was that moral principle? One should not do evil to do good? Why should one sin (and possibly many times) to avoid another sin?

The Church should marry REPENTANT cohabitors. But not the UNREPENTANT.

If one does not take the sacrament seriously enough to celebrate it the way it is supposed to be done, then it should not be celebrated.

Would you say “celebrate the Eucharist in mortal sin?” Or "get confirmed by a woman bishop? Nope.
I understand what you wrote now and before. What is required is not a state of grace, but the proper consent and no undispersed impediments. Marriage between two baptized is a sacrament which can increase sanctifying grace.

Reference from post 1: “But what if a Catholic couple–like so many–don’t have a problem with cohabitation, and they refuse to live apart before the marriage, and therefore also refuse to confess it. Ought the Church marry such a couple?”

CIC

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can. 1096
§1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Can. 1101
§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
 
When both go to confession with the priest as part of their marriage prep, they don’t mention the cohabitation.
They are under no obligation to go to confession with that priest, nor even in their parish. And they can go anonymously wherever they choose.

And if they were to go to the same priest preparing them for marriage the seal applies. He cannot use anything he learns in confession in the external forum.
 
The code of divine canon law approves that this concept can be understood. The constriction must be understood in the light of the jurisdiction of the lawyer at hand. Though complicated as it is, as long as the intention is shallow, it does not impose a responsibility for a radical moral action to begin with. Further, consult your local priest for advice, you can do this at the confessional.
 
They are under no obligation to go to confession with that priest, nor even in their parish. And they can go anonymously wherever they choose.

And if they were to go to the same priest preparing them for marriage the seal applies. He cannot use anything he learns in confession in the external forum.
I know they are not obligated to go to confession with the priest they’re preparing for marriage with.

But I’m talking about the clearly obvious in-your-face manner that the overwhelming vast majority of cohabitors behave in.

Remember, if they’re unrepentant, they don’t care. They justify it. They rationalize it. They cannot hear the opposing view. They will not listen. You can’t convince them. They’re in your face. They’re glad. They see cohabitation as “pre-marriage” or the proper thing to do. They think it is right. Reason = 0 with them.

Yes, some hide it. Whether they hide it by confessing to another priest, or other way. They know there’s something wrong, there’s shame, and it looks like there are seeds of repentance just waiting to sprout. Their unrepentance is wobbly and may be coming to an end. But at this point they can’t make that move yet.

Then there are those who hear the truth and repent right away. Or they’re approaching marriage as their means of making things right because they know they’re wrong for cohabiting.

The last two are a minority of cohabitors. The first one is the one I’m pretty much saying “look, it is obvious and you can tell. It is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.”

This is not a PhD level dissertation complicated thing. Unrepentant cohabitors are easy to spot.
 
I’m glad I’m not a parish priest! I think they are in a no-win situation with many marriage candidates these days (not to mention baptisms)

When DH and I did our pre-marriage course, which was a requirement for getting married in our Deanery, we were in a minority as we did not cohabit, or use ABC. Around our table, other couples discussed how their Parish Priests had advised them about cohabitation and ABC and they laughed about it and said how ‘in this day and age’ it just isn’t a big deal.

Many couples, after being married for some time, mature emotionally and spiritually and begin to seek answers through their faith, so one could argue that they ought to be able to receive the sacrament of marriage, even if they don’t really appreciate what they are getting at the time (a bit like a baby being baptised) in the hope that it will act like a catalyst to bringing them a deeper faith.

On the other hand, none of these couples could complain that they were not aware that cohabitation (as in living as man and wife, not just house-sharing) is a grave sin, because they had all come to the course via their Parish Priest and were recounting what they had been told and just refused to believe.

There is a knock-on problem with baptism. My brother married a non-Catholic whose reason for saying ‘yes’ was, “I thought it was safe to marry a Catholic as they take marriage seriously so he’d be more likely to stick around” :eek: She went through all the pre-marriage instruction and said her vows. She allows their child to attend Mass but does not come herself and has in the past few years, just when their child had started getting to the age where his peers have started to not attend, she’s started to tell him Catholics have silly rules; they are hypocrites obsessed with keeping up appearances and that there is no real point to attending Mass. In fact, she’s advised him that her childhood faith is much better - even though she doesn’t practice that either.

At his Christening, she chose a non-Catholic Godmother which the PP allowed, so there’s no spiritual dimension there either.

Most recently, he’s explained to the rest of the family that the Real Presence is a myth and the bread and wine remain as they are and are just symbols. This came from his Catholic school, because they don’t want to alienate the non-Catholic pupils!

I hate to use the term ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ but aren’t we just brewing up a whole Cafeteria full of them by being so lax at every vital stage of a young person’s life? It’s sad that converts or former lapsed Catholics are so full of zeal and enthusiasm for a faith that has clear moral guidance and rules…and yet we seem afraid to share that same faith with people already in the fold.😦
 
Nope.

Now they’re in an invalid or illicit marriage (since they don’t know what marriage is about) - replacing one sin with another, with an 80% chance of divorce, and a third sin right around the corner.
No, they are not in an invalid marriage. The way to invalidate a marriage is to not intend one of the essentials of marriage: permanent until death, faithful to spouse, willing to have children… Cohabitation does not touch on those and therefore does not affect the validlity of the marriage.

As for the 80% number, that has been chipped away at by further research and some studies have even now shown no difference based on certain variables.
First, stop cohabiting. Even for a few months. Then go to confession and marry.
When children are in the home, the USCCB does not automatically recommend separation.
 
No, they are not in an invalid marriage. The way to invalidate a marriage is to not intend one of the essentials of marriage: permanent until death, faithful to spouse, willing to have children… Cohabitation does not touch on those and therefore does not affect the validlity of the marriage.

As for the 80% number, that has been chipped away at by further research and some studies have even now shown no difference based on certain variables.
If you bothered to read my later posts in this thread, you’ll notice I dropped the claim of invalid marriage, and switched to a different set of objections, which you didn’t answer.

I don’t believe that sin should be committed to prevent another sin. One does not do evil to prevent evil.
When children are in the home, the USCCB does not automatically recommend separation.
Separate living temporarily apart does not mean that parents stop relating to each other and their kids. The separation they’re talking about is a dissolution of the relationship, and permanent, not a temporary one. Even scripture talks about married couples “going apart” for purposes of prayer (i.e. retreats), which are temporary separations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top