Should Church marry unrepentant cohabiters?

[1ke]

Unrepentant cohabitors are easy to spot.

And, unrepentant cohabitation is NOT an impediment to valid marriage. If it were, the Church would teach that it is, canon law would indicate that it is, and such people would not be married in the Church.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I don’t believe that sin should be committed to prevent another sin. One does not do evil to prevent evil.

Ultimately that’s not something anyone else can judge. Being externally in a situation that is sinful is different from being culpable for that sin. Canon Law does not list cohabitation as an impediment to marriage and therefore using that issue alone to deny a wedding is a bit problematic.

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.

Of course it doesn’t mean they stop relating to each other but it does absolutely nothing to address anything beyond an external situation. Couples that separate just to appease their parish priest (or families) hasn’t really accomplished anything.

You seem to be going beyond what even the Church has asked of couples,
USCCB:

1. Should cohabiting couples be encouraged to separate prior to the wedding?

Many diocesan marriage preparation policies suggest that pastoral ministers encourage cohabiting couples to separate…Even if the couple chooses not to separate, they can be encouraged to live chastely before marriage…Some couples are not normally asked to separate, e.g., those with children. Ideally, before challenging a couple to separate the minister knows their particular circumstances and why they decided to live together. A couple may have what seem to them good reasons (e.g., finances, safety) for living together. A change in living arrangements can pose practical problems…

1. If a couple is cohabiting, can marriage be denied or delayed?

Denial of marriage

-- Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation. Marriage preparation may continue even if the couple refuses to separate. Pastoral ministers can be assured that to assist couples in regularizing their situation is not to approve of cohabitation.

 

[pensmama87]

And, unrepentant cohabitation is NOT an impediment to valid marriage. If it were, the Church would teach that it is, canon law would indicate that it is, and such people would not be married in the Church.

I’m very glad we were still married. Marriage brought us our children, and our first’s baptism brought us to embracing and practicing the faith in full. That’s the case for us and many of our sincerely practicing friends.

 

[deaconjohnO]

(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… )

It is required to fill out the pre nuptial information separately. I’ve never had a couple use the same address. Lucky me I guess.

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.

Those who are not prohibited cannot demand which cleric witnesses their marriage. A perfect example is myself. I refused to witness a marriage because they wanted to get Married on a weekend that my long planned family vacation began (Big deal for the kids BTW). The couple wouldn’t consider another weekend so I said I couldn’t do it. I told them that I simply could not do it that weekend. They declined (rightly so I think weddings are big deals).

 

[BobCatholic]

And, unrepentant cohabitation is NOT an impediment to valid marriage. If it were, the Church would teach that it is, canon law would indicate that it is, and such people would not be married in the Church.

I never said it was. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I made a moral argument - sin should not be committed to avoid sin.

Ultimately that’s not something anyone else can judge.

Actually, it is easy to spot. Clearly you didn’t read my earlier post on how to spot unrepentant cohabitors.

Being externally in a situation that is sinful is different from being culpable for that sin.

Not sure what you mean by that. If someone is in your face proud of their cohabitation, at the least there is the sin of scandal.

Canon Law does not list cohabitation as an impediment to marriage and therefore using that issue alone to deny a wedding is a bit problematic.

Never said it was. Don’t put words in my mouth - you’re the 2nd person to do that in this thread.

Of course it doesn’t mean they stop relating to each other but it does absolutely nothing to address anything beyond an external situation.

So eliminating the sin of scandal is not a good thing. Got it.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I never said it was. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I made a moral argument - sin should not be committed to avoid sin.

No one said that you made that particular argument. What has been pointed out is that a priest **cannot **deny marriage based on cohabitation alone.

Actually, it is easy to spot. Clearly you didn’t read my earlier post on how to spot unrepentant cohabitors.

I read it, but your list is exists in a vacuum that has little to do with how things transpire 99% of the time in these situations.
For example, you said they are unrepentant if they put down the same address. Well, if they know you’re going to refuse them then they’ll give two different addresses and all you’ve accomplished is rewarding liars.

Not sure what you mean by that. If someone is in your face proud of their cohabitation, at the least there is the sin of scandal.

So eliminating the sin of scandal is not a good thing. Got it.

Refusing a wedding can also cause a scandal. Here is New England two people living together is not a scandal, people might think it terrible but very few would be scandalized by it. On the other hand, refusing to marry someone on that basis could be scandalous.

 

[Vico]

No one said that you made that particular argument. What has been pointed out is that a priest **cannot **deny marriage based on cohabitation alone.

I read it, but your list is exists in a vacuum that has little to do with how things transpire 99% of the time in these situations.
For example, you said they are unrepentant if they put down the same address. Well, if they know you’re going to refuse them then they’ll give two different addresses and all you’ve accomplished is rewarding liars.

Refusing a wedding can also cause a scandal. Here is New England two people living together is not a scandal, people might think it terrible but very few would be scandalized by it. On the other hand, refusing to marry someone on that basis could be scandalous.

You are seriously saying that young people in New England observing others living together without being married does not lead them to do the same?

Also, one can intend to flaunt convention, so willingly (rebelliously) intend to give scandal.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You are seriously saying that young people in New England observing others living together without being married does not lead them to do the same?

Yes, young people make up their own minds on these things today.

 

[Vico]

Yes, young people make up their own minds on these things today.

Other generations also, however, I am asking, in their making up of their own minds on these things, are they uninfluenced by the behaviors of others with regard to those matters?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Other generations also, however, I am asking, in their making up of their own minds on these things, are they uninfluenced by the behaviors of others with regard to those matters?

Maybe at one time that was true, but today younger couples are either going to live together or not live together for their own reasons, they really could care less what other people’s reasons are. The saddest aspect in all this is that many couples that live together do so in order to save money for the wedding…

 

[Vico]

Maybe at one time that was true, but today younger couples are either going to live together or not live together for their own reasons, they really could care less what other people’s reasons are. The saddest aspect in all this is that many couples that live together do so in order to save money for the wedding…

People are beyond a doubt influenced by the example of those around them. And we must take that into consideration to not give scandal to the weak. It is a moral imperative. Those that act immorally are weak.