Should Co-habitation be an impediment to marriage?

[Joab_Anias]

First off I am asking whether co habitation SHOULD be an impediment. I know it isn’t currently, hence the question and Poll.

Secondly I am not talking about withholding a Sacrament for a one time occurrence. I am talking about unmarried couples who are having regular sex and have no intention of refraining from it until they are married.

Is that clear enough?

Not really, it sounds like they intend to refrain from it after they are married.

Seriously though if they have this attitude its unlikely they will be happy after marriage. A good discerning priest should pick up on this in the counceling phase of the engagement.

NO, cohabitation isn’t an impediment.

Fornication unrepented of can be but how can the church enforce something like that? Its impossible. Our faith and belief in Gods words and example have to come into play for us or the impediment is more than fornication.

If you want a clear answer you should get your terms clear.

The unmarried can be committing fornication without cohabitation and vice-versa.

Maybe your question should have been; Should fornication be a church enforced impediment to receiving a sacramental marriage from the church?

Then you would have been more clear as this seems to be what your asking.

Your labeling cohabitation as fornication and doing so is incorrect terminology. Men and women cohabitate without fornication in all walks of life and many of those circumstances are very holy ones.

Also you misunderstand the nature of an impediment and the role of the Church. Your setting the Church up as a tribunal and thats not its purpose. The church has a process to descern who should recieve the sacraments that is largely left up to the conscience of the reciever. I hope you know such issues would come up in the manditory interpersonal instruction period for engaged couples. It is also highly encouraged for a couple to attend a marriage encounter program where such issues again are explored. This is how the church protects Gods people, beyond that it aids in our formation of conscience. Its duty isn’t to follow us into our bedroom.

When the Church tells you if you do something it is sin or may cause you problems emotionally down the road which it does and you do it anyway you have only your own weakness to blame. There is a war of the flesh with the spirit mentioned by St. Paul that is noteworthy in what you suggest and promote should be an impediment. There is also a danger of judging others incorrectly.

From personal experience I would tell you, that while I do not believe that the church should try and enforce this as an impediment, that a couple who are failing at controling themselves or obvserving Gods will for them as their center by disregarding it comepletely are likely to not know peace once the gratifications wear off and I would not wish that eventual strife and turmoil upon anyone. This is basically what the CCC says about the right to trial marriage.

We all have free will and we all have to come to terms with our choices. The church has spoken about this many times throughout history and St Pauls epistles and Christs words are clear on the Fathers will for us to mortify our carnal desires of the flesh. In more recent times, further clarification comes from the CCC under the sections on marriage and JPII wrote a whole encyclical on the cult of the body called Humane Vitae that is well worth a read for out modern decadant times where the temptions of the flesh are unprecidented in the media. Have you watched TV lately? Girls have gone wild! Do you really think an enforced impediment is the answer? What makes you think the self indulgent would even care? If they even noticed, all they would see is the church being more controling and authoritarian than it should be and they would be right.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Here is a scenerio?

A 40 yrs old couple meet on the internet. Each are divorced and annuled and have learned much from their mistakes.

They fall in love but live 1000 miles apart however make a way to meet.

The man visits on several occasions over many months and they really get to know each other and want to get married. They are chaste and mutually certain that God is ordaining their marital union.

He returns home again after thier engagement with full intentions of doing everything the “right way”.

They discover they are beyond their wills to remain appart and must be closer together. The relocation is hard enough financially, let alone finding a second place for him given various reasons and she submits to let him stay with her to find work.

Out of desperation they cohabitate with full intentions of being married and remaining chaste untill they do so. The impediment now is building a communal life and undergoing the lengthy instruction process with their priest and making the other arrangements. So long as they can remain chaste while they wait they do not sin and aren’t excluded from the sacraments.

SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE DENIED A SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE LIVING TOGETHER?

 

[agapewolf]

Cohabitation without sexual relations creates many many problems itself. There’s a reason that our church is against it.

Please read my previous post about freedom.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Cohabitation without sexual relations creates many many problems itself. There’s a reason that our church is against it.

Please read my previous post about freedom.

On the contrary co-habitation without sexual relations creates only one problem. Temptation. All temptation can be confronted with Christ.

The Church would spare us the temptation however those of Clerical life remain celibate and cohabitate. How do they do it I wonder?

It can be done by anyone if they have the fortitude to follow Christ instead of their carnal natures. In fact chastety has a place in Marriage as well. What you suggest insinuates that were utterly unable to control our urges.

Co-habitation is not sin or impediment.

 

[childofmary1143]

Every time I start a thread I always learn something and this one is no exception. What I have learned is that while co-habitation with sex can’t be an IMPEDIMENT to marriage, it can and in my opinion should be a reason to delay it.

 

[agapewolf]

On the contrary co-habitation without sexual relations creates only one problem. Temptation. All temptation can be confronted with Christ.

The Church would spare us the temptation however those of Clerical life remain celibate and cohabitate. How do they do it I wonder?

It can be done by anyone if they have the fortitude to follow Christ instead of their carnal natures. In fact chastety has a place in Marriage as well. What you suggest insinuates that were utterly unable to control our urges.

Co-habitation is not sin or impediment.

This is incorrect to say that there are no problems with cohabitation except temptation. Again, please read my post about freedom.

Why do you think cohabitating couples have a higher divorce rate? When couples cohabitate (even without sex), those “compatibility” things that people argue they want to figure out is actually not a reason that should keep one from getting married or not…those are small things…Those things work themselves out when one is living the vocation of marriage the correct way…putting the spouse’s desires ahead of their own…and that is added and able to be done with the GRACE from the sacrament.

In discerning, preparing for marriage a couple should be focused on the BIG things like faith, morals, and talking about it all…praying together. WHen living together, there are so many issues of daily life that come into distraction.

I can go on and on… the list is endless of why cohabitation is bad and wrong. The Church doesn’t like it either.

And I am not suggesting that people are unable to control urges…I have no idea how you got that conclusion.

 

[Delphinus85]

Well, I’m not sure how one would find out about a man beyond interviews and such, but for a woman, it would simply be a matter of determining whether the hymen was intact.

A hymen can break very easily. Horseback riding, bicycling, heavy lifting. Some women are born with them, some are born without.Some women’s hymen never break, even if she is sexually active. This is not effective, and frankly its no one’s business. It’s between her, her fiancee and her priest.

Secondly, everyone makes mistakes. Just because someone made a mistake doesn’t bar them from marriage. Did they go to confession before marriage? Any sin makes receiving a sacrament questionable. You should seek reconciliation through confession, then partake in the sacrament. Doesn’t scripture say that if you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, then you are guilty of all of it? We really shouldn’t judge so harshly.

 

[palmas85]

Here is a scenerio?

A 40 yrs old couple meet on the internet. Each are divorced and annuled and have learned much from their mistakes.

They fall in love but live 1000 miles apart however make a way to meet.

The man visits on several occasions over many months and they really get to know each other and want to get married. They are chaste and mutually certain that God is ordaining their marital union.

He returns home again after thier engagement with full intentions of doing everything the “right way”.

They discover they are beyond their wills to remain appart and must be closer together. The relocation is hard enough financially, let alone finding a second place for him given various reasons and she submits to let him stay with her to find work.

Out of desperation they cohabitate with full intentions of being married and remaining chaste untill they do so. The impediment now is building a communal life and undergoing the lengthy instruction process with their priest and making the other arrangements. So long as they can remain chaste while they wait they do not sin and aren’t excluded from the sacraments.

SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE DENIED A SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE LIVING TOGETHER?

Wow. Out of desperation they are forced to live together! What a scenario. Don’t forget that they are in their 40’s, previously divorced and annulled and have allegedly learned from their mistakes. So what do they do? Rather than try to build something in the right way, they panic, can’t live without each other, chastely of course, and so with no options whatsoever, he grudgingly moves to where she is so that he can presumably look for a job.

Now I am not going to cast aspersions on our mythical couple here, but it appears to me that a better example to support this ludicrous behavior could have been created. These two simpletons are acting like a couple of 16 year olds in the middle of their first crush.

 

[Sure]

Here is a scenerio?

A 40 yrs old couple meet on the internet. Each are divorced and annuled and have learned much from their mistakes.

They fall in love but live 1000 miles apart however make a way to meet.

The man visits on several occasions over many months and they really get to know each other and want to get married. They are chaste and mutually certain that God is ordaining their marital union.

He returns home again after thier engagement with full intentions of doing everything the “right way”.

They discover they are beyond their wills to remain appart and must be closer together. The relocation is hard enough financially, let alone finding a second place for him given various reasons and she submits to let him stay with her to find work.

Out of desperation they cohabitate with full intentions of being married and remaining chaste untill they do so. The impediment now is building a communal life and undergoing the lengthy instruction process with their priest and making the other arrangements. So long as they can remain chaste while they wait they do not sin and aren’t excluded from the sacraments.

SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE DENIED A SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE LIVING TOGETHER?

They should lovingly be informed that their living together is a grave scandal to the community and undermines the family and the dignity of marriage EVEN though they are chaste. They should be informed that if they are truly serious about entering into Christian Marriage that they will move apart to demonstrate this seriousness. If they refuse to consider the priest’s request, then that is an indication that they may not be ready for Marriage.

In the example, perhaps they should have looked into all this before moving in together.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

An IMPEDIMENT means the sacrament cannot be administered at all.

…That is not the basis of an impediment. The Sacraments aren’t denied for that reason. An impediment has to do with the nature of the Sacrament.

Living together, while sinful, does not have any inherent qualities that invalidate marriage. In fact, seeking marriage is the correct thing for such a couple to do.

Impediments generally have some grounds in the Bible (divine positive law) or the human nature (natural law). They are not means of repression. Making cohabitation with a sexual element an impediment would be repression - it would basically be a punitive impediment.

Let’s be clear about impediments. There can be impediments that are of ecclesiastical origin, and these can be dispensed.

Can. 1078 §1. The local ordinary can dispense his own subjects residing anywhere and all actually present in his own territory from all impediments of ecclesiastical law except those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM

So while ideally they will be erected in order to safeguard the sacrament in some way, they do not necessary (i.e., logically) flow out of the nature of the sacrament itself. You can’t say for each impediment that, “Well, A is true of marriage so impediment B must follow.”

Now I’ll agree with 1ke that on its face there is nothing in cohabitation with fornication that would inherently invalidate a marriage. Still, how many couples who are fornicating while living together do we seriously believe have a proper understanding of what marriage is (and thus what they are supposed to be committing to in the vows)? The astronomically higher divorce rate of these couples should be a tip right off the bat. I know the anullment debate is an endless one, but considering the extremely high percentage of marriages contracted that are later found to be null, wouldn’t it at least be worth some discernment, keeping in mind the negative repercussions possible - like discouraging marriage - as to whether some sort of impediment or, preferably, some sort of delay and investigation into their intentions, would ensure a better safeguarding of the sacrament? Remember, impediments do not necessarily invalidate a marriage. Some do, but others are simply safeguards erected to protect the sacrament from abuse or address particular problems that have arisen.

I happen to have voted “no” on this referendum, but I still think it’s an issue worthy of some serious thought. Have we really done a service to the cohabiting couples who will not be validly marrying if we, knowing of this high risk, choose to go along with the game rather than putting in serious effort to ensure the marriage is real?

 

[Delphinus85]

Let’s be clear about impediments. There can be impediments that are of ecclesiastical origin, and these can be dispensed.

Can. 1078 §1. The local ordinary can dispense his own subjects residing anywhere and all actually present in his own territory from all impediments of ecclesiastical law except those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM

So while ideally they will be erected in order to safeguard the sacrament in some way, they do not necessary (i.e., logically) flow out of the nature of the sacrament itself. You can’t say for each impediment that, “Well, A is true of marriage so impediment B must follow.”

Now I’ll agree with 1ke that on its face there is nothing in cohabitation with fornication that would inherently invalidate a marriage. Still, how many couples who are fornicating while living together do we seriously believe have a proper understanding of what marriage is (and thus what they are supposed to be committing to in the vows)? The astronomically higher divorce rate of these couples should be a tip right off the bat. I know the anullment debate is an endless one, but considering the extremely high percentage of marriages contracted that are later found to be null, wouldn’t it at least be worth some discernment, keeping in mind the negative repercussions possible - like discouraging marriage - as to whether some sort of impediment or, preferably, some sort of delay and investigation into their intentions, would ensure a better safeguarding of the sacrament? Remember, impediments do not necessarily invalidate a marriage. Some do, but others are simply safeguards erected to protect the sacrament from abuse or address particular problems that have arisen.

I happen to have voted “no” on this referendum, but I still think it’s an issue worthy of some serious thought. Have we really done a service to the cohabiting couples who will not be validly marrying if we, knowing of this high risk, choose to go along with the game rather than putting in serious effort to ensure the marriage is real?

Just to start, I agree it is a scandal to the commnity. But how is it different than a couple who got married in a protestant church or by the justice of peace, and then convert to catholicism. They are not validly married by the church, and the church is all that really matters, yes? They must live chaste.

Secondly, I notice everyone is using “look at the divorce rate” to put down anything that they deem “out of order” I’ve seen it used to blame artificial birth control, the use of NFP, cohabitation, fundamental christianity, those who marry earlier than later, those who marry later rather than earlier, those who date a long time, those who date a short time (you get the point, some of them are contradictions)

I submit that the divorce rate is simple a result if people who think that marriage is dissolvable. It’s whether people believe (at the beginning) that divorce is never an option. No matter what. I think the truth is, everyone has a reason. Cohabitation does carry a benefit. You DO get to see how the other lives and you can decide if you can live with it. It has a downside too: you are living as a married couple and you may believe that marriage is just as permanent as cohabitation. Same with anything else. EVERYTHING has a pro and a con. You can point to the cons to blame any divorce rate at all.

I don’t know, personally I hate statistics, and I rather see this infamous divorce rate used to justify almost any belief. Anyone who uses “look at the divorce rate” to me, is about the same as someone who uses what happened with the knight’s templar to link some crazy historical theory together. It’s a very weak thing to use.

But I do agree with you, just not about divorce rate. Cohabitation doesn’t mean you understand marraige any less or will get divorced, it just means you made a different (granted, poor) choice. I see cohabitation as a problem because you are cheating yourself out of the joy of being married when you CAN live together. It’s the best thing ever, and I feel sorry for cohabiting couples who won’t experience this. But yes, only a priest or the marriage counsellor can tell if the couple understands marriage. And they really do probe…at least, ours did

 

[agapewolf]

Just to start, I agree it is a scandal to the commnity. But how is it different than a couple who got married in a protestant church or by the justice of peace, and then convert to catholicism. They are not validly married by the church, and the church is all that really matters, yes? They must live chaste.

This is incorrect. Protestant marriages are presumed valid. If they convert to Catholicism, they do not have to get their marriage convalidated. (all other things being equal).

 

[Sure]

I really don’t understand why the priest can’t just say:

“So, you understand Marriage and the teaching of the Church? Then prove it and move out. Demonstrate your knowledge and intention through your actions. Otherwise, it’s just empty words.”

So to conclude, formal impediment? No.

Reason for counseling and potentially refusing to witness the Marriage? Yes.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Wow. Out of desperation they are forced to live together! What a scenario. Don’t forget that they are in their 40’s, previously divorced and annulled and have allegedly learned from their mistakes. So what do they do? Rather than try to build something in the right way, they panic, can’t live without each other, chastely of course, and so with no options whatsoever, he grudgingly moves to where she is so that he can presumably look for a job.

Now I am not going to cast aspersions on our mythical couple here, but it appears to me that a better example to support this ludicrous behavior could have been created. These two simpletons are acting like a couple of 16 year olds in the middle of their first crush.

The question in caps is all that is required. You call them simpletons yet fail to answer the question. How do you percieve that as NOT casting aspersions? Lol.

No one said He moves there grudgingly. They want to begin life together but have no other logistical means to relocate. Maybe they should save up for a year so he can he can get his own place and then go through instructions in the church before being married and then living together. I am not condoning the actions or rationalizing them as ideal but ASKING a question.

Should they be denied a sacramental marriage in spite of their disorder?

It requires a SIMPLE yes or no answer.

 

[Joab_Anias]

They should lovingly be informed that their living together is a grave scandal to the community and undermines the family and the dignity of marriage EVEN though they are chaste. They should be informed that if they are truly serious about entering into Christian Marriage that they will move apart to demonstrate this seriousness. If they refuse to consider the priest’s request, then that is an indication that they may not be ready for Marriage.

In the example, perhaps they should have looked into all this before moving in together.

Maybe they did look into all this and no Priest is asking them to seperate. They are in a new community and no one knows them or their situation that they keep private while the eagerly wait to be wed so there is no public scandal. As well as they are being chaste and aren’t excluded from the sacraments that they frequesnt as often as possible while they build a life together.

Once having yielded to live together should they then pull apart and seperate? Where is the commitment and constancy in that? I admit this is a unique scenerio however the point of it is to address the question of the opening post:

Should this couple then be allowed a sacramental marriage or not?

 

[Joab_Anias]

I really don’t understand why the priest can’t just say:

“So, you understand Marriage and the teaching of the Church? Then prove it and move out. Demonstrate your knowledge and intention through your actions. Otherwise, it’s just empty words.”

So to conclude, formal impediment? No.

Reason for counseling and potentially refusing to witness the Marriage? Yes.

That wouldn’t be very compassionate of a Priest now would it?

Do they not demonstrate there intention by remaining chaste. They are not excluded from the sacraments as they are in no mortal sin. And even if they did fall because of the weakness, if they sincerely repent are they not re-admitted?

To say you have to now seperate until we can get you into the schedule and you can set a date at my earliest convenience.

Thats assuming one has the resources to set up a second household.

The point is, Cohabitation in and of itself is no impediment, its the way you handle the near occasions and temptations to sin that is the danger. These near occasions are just as present outside of cohabitation. Plenty of couples indulge in premarital sex without shacking up yet they sleep in seperate houses. If you can’t resist then you shouldn’t do it. I agree its playing with fire but with God nothing is impossible and many Saints have walked through flames unscathed.

 

[Sure]

That wouldn’t be very compassionate of a Priest now would it?

Do they not demonstrate there intention by remaining chaste. They are not excluded from the sacraments as they are in no mortal sin. And even if they did fall because of the weakness, if they sincerely repent are they not re-admitted?

To say you have to now seperate until we can get you into the schedule and you can set a date at my earliest convenience.

Thats assuming one has the resources to set up a second household.

The point is, Cohabitation in and of itself is no impediment, its the way you handle the near occasions and temptations to sin that is the danger. These near occasions are just as present outside of cohabitation. Plenty of couples indulge in premarital sex without shacking up yet they sleep in seperate houses. If you can’t resist then you shouldn’t do it. I agree its playing with fire but with God nothing is impossible and many Saints have walked through flames unscathed.

I am assuming they are being chaste. I am not talking about occasions of sin either. Those don’t matter in this evaluation. There is much more than just potential premarital sex at issue.

Living together when not married is a public scandal and shows an utter lack of maturity and an unpreparedness for Christian Marriage. If a couple is serious about pursuing marriage they can live apart until married. Trust me, they will face more difficult obstacles in their lives together. The resources can work. The man could live with a friend or go home and live with his parents. There are many options. This really isn’t rocket science, nor is it harsh. If two people love each other and Christ and His Church, I am sure they can find a way to follow His laws.

 

[Joab_Anias]

This is incorrect to say that there are no problems with cohabitation except temptation. Again, please read my post about freedom.

I agree its a lite treatment of the subject. Along with the temptation comes the inconstancy to purpose of comittment. Once married there are no doubts about committment while mearly cohabitating there is the temptation to trial marriage that as the CCC says no matter how firm the comittment of a couple to marry cannot ensure a mutually self giving love.

Why do you think cohabitating couples have a higher divorce rate?

Selfishness.

When couples cohabitate (even without sex), those “compatibility” things that people argue they want to figure out is actually not a reason that should keep one from getting married or not…those are small things…Those things work themselves out when one is living the vocation of marriage the correct way…putting the spouse’s desires ahead of their own…and that is added and able to be done with the GRACE from the sacrament.

What if that Grace is given before the sacrament. One cannot just walk into the Priest and get married no matter how ready they are. Where is the freedom there when one is required a lengthy instruction period? Is not the same true for baptism? Should one want to have teenage children baptised the initiation is lengthy no matter how well trained they may be by their parent even though the importance of being baptized is a matter of salvation.

In discerning, preparing for marriage a couple should be focused on the BIG things like faith, morals, and talking about it all…praying together. WHen living together, there are so many issues of daily life that come into distraction.

Lets suppose a couple has done that but is impeded by circumstances and cannot contain themselves and submit to living together out of what they feel is financial and emotional necessity. Are they just weak or stupid? And to the topic of the thread should they then be denied the sacrament because they failed to wait. The sacrament of marriage in the church is fairly young in the life of the church. What about before marriage was a sacrament. Were there successful marriages? Of course there were. The virtue of self giving love and the other big things that you mentioned are what matter are they not. That being said I totally agree that the church should discourage cohabitation due to matters of maturity and psychological impediment that are not recognized until to late but that is not to say it isn’t possible. There are always exceptions to the rule and I believe that is why cohabitation is not considered a formal impediment nor should it be ever. I know of couples who have cohabitated a decade or more before marriage and are still together.

I can go on and on… the list is endless of why cohabitation is bad and wrong. The Church doesn’t like it either.

Understood. But even though its discouraged the church is yet merciful as it should be. As we all should be.

And I am not suggesting that people are unable to control urges…I have no idea how you got that conclusion.

Not really a conclusion but an observation of the biggest danger to cohabitation. It can be attributed to the disfunction of the family, disease and disregard for life.

Peace.

 

[agapewolf]

Joab

I was not arguing for or against the impediment…I was correcting your point which you made:

On the contrary co-habitation without sexual relations creates only one problem. Temptation. All temptation can be confronted with Christ.

I made my point very clearly that cohabitation causes way way more problems than just merely temptation.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I am assuming they are being chaste. I am not talking about occasions of sin either. Those don’t matter in this evaluation. There is much more than just potential premarital sex at issue.

Living together when not married is a public scandal and shows an utter lack of maturity and an unpreparedness for Christian Marriage. If a couple is serious about pursuing marriage they can live apart until married. Trust me, they will face more difficult obstacles in their lives together. The resources can work. The man could live with a friend or go home and live with his parents. There are many options. This really isn’t rocket science, nor is it harsh. If two people love each other and Christ and His Church, I am sure they can find a way to follow His laws.

Ah yes but the scenario here was they were 1000 miles apart. How do you propose they would undergo instruction and become part of the same community. Lets assume he didn’t have the means to move there on his own. There are things like employment to consider as well. Perhaps he has no family he can stay with near her. Should they take the chance to co-habitate, maintain a long distance relationship which is really no relationship at all or just undergo the heartbreak of calling it quits?

There is no simple answer. What if they are very prayerful people and they recieve confirmation and inspiration to unite from above dispite popular opinion. Should they ignore their choice and Gods will that says its good that they should marry? No man is an island and men and women are designed for each other. Paul says its better for a man to marry than to burn. Burn with what exactly: lonliness, heartache? Lust isn’t an issue in this scenario and were assuming the couple sincerely want to give themselves to each other in a self giving committment but are faced with the obstacle of distance.

You see this is not a simplistic scenereo and would take much discernment. Cohabitation is a loophole in this case. Which furthers my case why it is not an impediment nor should this hypothetical couple be denied sacramental marriage when they are doing the best they can to be obedient to God and his church.

After all lets not forget they are not excluded from the sacraments so long as they remain chaste. If they are new to their congregation and no one knows they cohabitate and they marry quitely as soon as possible where is the public scandal? How does ones decisions scandalize another if they do not effect their own or anothers faith?