Should Co-habitation be an impediment to marriage?

[Kielbasi]

I’m having a hard time why people are nitpicking about how cohabitation is defined here. In my old parish my Pastor had a rule that he wouldn’t baptize any baby if the parents weren’t attending SUNDAY Mass on a regular basis. He had his reasons and I am sure they were lawful. Following that I just think why should the Church Sacramentally marry couples who have no intention to follow ALL the rules of the Church. A Sacrament isn’t an absolute right for any and all.

What is so wrong with that???

What’s wrong with it is that the canon law, not an individual priest , determines when the sacraments should be administered.

There isn’t anything in canon law that I’m aware of, that allows a priest to deny marriage to a couple because of past sexual sin. There are reasons, of course, why he could. If one of the partes were a priest, or murdered their former spouse so they could get married, or was a nun, or the parties were first cousins.

But all of those reasons are pretty much enumerated in canon law.

As far as whether or not your priest was acting lawfully or not in denying baptism to the children of less active Catholics, that has been discussed previously here, and it was highly disputed.

 

[JimG]

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.

You’re kidding, right? You are proposing a virginity test before marriage?? By the Church??!! Give me a break!

Let’s see now: ‘you’ve had pre-marital sex; therefore you can never get married. You’ll just have to keep on with the pre-marital sex.’

 

[Pug]

The virginity test idea seems bizarre, to say the least. A woman who is a widow, a woman who was raped, a woman who had consensual relations with a different man, etc., all these can’t marry because they can’t prove they have not had relations with the man they wish to marry?

Also, fornication being an impediment to future marriage seems odd. I know many couples who thought they were married, and lived as a married couple for years. Later on, they convert to Catholicism and realize their marriage is not valid, for whatever reason. These people would not be able to have their marriage remedied (via annulment, convalidation, whatever), but would have to split up?

 

[LilyM]

One of the ramifications would most likely be that individuals would finally be forced to treat marriage and sexuality with the reverence both deserve.

No - the only ramification is that they’d merrily continue fornicating and if they marry would marry outside the Church. It’s not going to change the number of sinners or the nature of their sin.

As for why it shouldn’t be an impediment - no sin (presuming it’s repented and confessed prior) should be an impediment to receiving any of the sacraments.

We believe in conversion, in God’s mercy and God’s forgiveness even of those who fall seventy times seven times. Certainly we expect it for ourselves when we’re sinful yet repentant, why deny it to others?

 

[childofmary1143]

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?

 

[childofmary1143]

Also lets agree that “Eric” is a person who should be ignored here. A simple search of his posts reveal very disturbing things.

 

[1ke]

In my old parish my Pastor had a rule that he wouldn’t baptize any baby if the parents weren’t attending SUNDAY Mass on a regular basis. He had his reasons and I am sure they were lawful.

Canon law states that for baptism to occur there must be a well-founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. If this hope does not exist, then baptism can be **DELAYED **(not denied) until such time as there is hope.

The reason is because at the baptism the parents are to make these promises. The priest would be participating in a lie if he knew the parents were going to stand up and say “yes” when they mean “no”.

This is for infants. Those who reach the age of reason may ask for baptism themselves.

Therefore, there is not an IMPEDIMENT here. An IMPEDIMENT means the sacrament cannot be administered at all.

Following that I just think why should the Church Sacramentally marry couples who have no intention to follow ALL the rules of the Church. A Sacrament isn’t an absolute right for any and 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.

What is so wrong with that???

Because NO Sacrament is meant only for the perfect. What do you believe the purpose of the Sacraments to be unless they are channels of grace and means of sanctification?

The Church wants such couples to correct their error by approaching the Church for grace and sanctification.

 

[childofmary1143]

Canon law states that for baptism to occur there must be a well-founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. If this hope does not exist, then baptism can be **DELAYED **(not denied) until such time as there is hope.

The reason is because at the baptism the parents are to make these promises. The priest would be participating in a lie if he knew the parents were going to stand up and say “yes” when they mean “no”.

This is for infants. Those who reach the age of reason may ask for baptism themselves.

Therefore, there is not an IMPEDIMENT here. 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.

Because NO Sacrament is meant only for the perfect. What do you believe the purpose of the Sacraments to be unless they are channels of grace and means of sanctification?

The Church wants such couples to correct their error by approaching the Church for grace and sanctification.

Thanks for that informative post. Having read what you said then I have no problem with delaying sacramental marriage until they are prepared to live a Catholic life (i.e. no sex before marriage in particular).

 

[Contarini]

Can anyone give me any good reason why co-habitation should not be an impediment to marriage? Before you reply I should make clear that I define co-habitation as sharing the same bed (sex before marriage).

I think making cohabitation an impediment to marriage is counter-productive. If people are cohabiting and there are no good reasons why they can’t get married, we need to get them married as soon as possible. Obviously if one of the parties has been married before or something like that, it’s a very different situation.

From what I understand, it’s common for many Catholic couples to separate briefly before marriage in order to get around the “impediment.” This makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

IFollowing that I just think why should the Church Sacramentally marry couples who have no intention to follow ALL the rules of the Church.

Chastity isn’t a “rule of the Church.” Lenten penance is a rule of the Church. Holy Days of Obligation are a rule of the Church. Pre-Cana counseling or whatever you call it is a rule of the Church. Chastity is a basic principle of Christian morality.

As far as I know, being in a state of grace has never been considered a prerequisite for marriage (as it is for receiving the Eucharist). As I understand it, faith in either the adult candidate or the infant’s parents is a prerequisite for baptism, and faithful attendance at Mass would be one way of demonstrating faith, so I think your pastor’s decision was reasonable, though of course I have no authority to pronounce on the matter!

Marriage is supposed to help people be chaste, so if people are having problems with chastity, they may need marriage really badly! On the other hand, marriage isn’t going to solve all people’s sexual problems, and they need to be told that very clearly in the premarital counseling. If they are so attracted to each other that they can’t help having sex (or think they can’t), what are they going to do 5-10 years down the road when they have a similar attraction for someone else instead of each other? This is a question with which young couples need to be confronted before getting married. When you get married, you promise to be faithful to your spouse even if someday you feel toward another woman (speaking from a man’s perspective) exactly as you now feel toward her.

Edwin

 

[1ke]

Thanks for that informative post. Having read what you said then I have no problem with delaying sacramental marriage until they are prepared to live a Catholic life (i.e. no sex before marriage in particular).

Such a delay requirement, however, is NOT in canon law when it comes to marriage.

 

[bilop]

The Church is “a hospital for sinners, not a Hotel for Saints” (I love that quote, but can’t remember who said it )

The goal of the Church is to reconcile sinners, not permanently alienate them.

I fail to see what this impediment is meant to achieve. Fornication is a common sin, but it is also one that can often be cured by marriage. This may be the only major area in which people are out of conformity with the Church; why would we deny them reconcialiation?

God Bless

 

[Other_Eric]

The Church is “a hospital for sinners, not a Hotel for Saints” (I love that quote, but can’t remember who said it )

The goal of the Church is to reconcile sinners, not permanently alienate them.

I fail to see what this impediment is meant to achieve. Fornication is a common sin, but it is also one that can often be cured by marriage. This may be the only major area in which people are out of conformity with the Church; why would we deny them reconcialiation?

God Bless

The proper means by which to achieve reconciliation is through the sacrament of confession, not marriage. Fornication is a sin that can only be “cured” by God’s boundless mercy, not through the reception of a sacrament unrelated to the healing that the fornicating couple desperately needs. Further, by engaging in fornication at all, a couple reveals that they are not properly disposed to marriage as they do not recognize its import in their hedonism and are unlikely to be aware of the grave responsibilities involved in that vocation.

Further, let’s be clear about who is alienating whom by introducing this new discipline. If a fornicating couple feels oppressed by the prudent disciplines the Church might place upon reception of marriage and therefore leaves the Church, they are not being alienated by the Church, they are alienating themselves.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

YES!! It should be an impediment to marriage. Think of it in another way, to receive the eucharist, a person must believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. Anything less is unexceptable to recieve the sarament. That is how marriage and co-habitation should be view by any faithful christian.

Open co-habitation is a mortal sin for two reasons. First is the fornication aspect then there is the scandal aspect in the community.

A person can not be living in an open state of mortal sin (in effect turning his or her back on God) without the sincere desire to change their sinful ways and expect God to be pleased “that they are making it right” by getting married.

Disobeying Gods law against co-habitation can not be justified by claiming that a promised marriage in the future will make it legitimate.

A state of sin can not form virtue!

 

[Yerusalyim]

1KE has it exactly correct. I’m surprised no one else got to this before. So, if you think fornication (cohabitation with sexual liason) should be an impediment to marriage, what OTHER sin should be an impediment to the sacrament?

Canon law states that for baptism to occur there must be a well-founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. If this hope does not exist, then baptism can be **DELAYED **(not denied) until such time as there is hope.

The reason is because at the baptism the parents are to make these promises. The priest would be participating in a lie if he knew the parents were going to stand up and say “yes” when they mean “no”.

This is for infants. Those who reach the age of reason may ask for baptism themselves.

Therefore, there is not an IMPEDIMENT here. 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.

Because NO Sacrament is meant only for the perfect. What do you believe the purpose of the Sacraments to be unless they are channels of grace and means of sanctification?

The Church wants such couples to correct their error by approaching the Church for grace and sanctification.

 

[Contarini]

YES!! It should be an impediment to marriage. Think of it in another way, to receive the eucharist, a person must believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. Anything less is unexceptable to recieve the sarament. That is how marriage and co-habitation should be view by any faithful christian.

What is your support in Church teaching for this analogy between marriage and Eucharist? I am unaware that the Church has ever taught that one must have the same dispositions to receive marriage that one must have to receive the Eucharist.

Edwin

 

[ljprevo]

Cohabitation is not fornication and adulterous in and of itself. They are two very different things.

Cohabitation is permissible while remaining chaste if that can be reasonably accomplished responsibly due to certain circumstances that may necessitate such an arrangement in a permanently committed relationship. To do so otherwise is to fool yourself that there is actually a permanently committed relationship present and to rationalize sin against yourself and God.

Sorry I feel you are giving bad advice here. Cohabitation before marriage is wrong weather you are having Sex or not. It displays the appearance of sin, period, and that is to be avoided.

I am not saying it should be an impediment, howver the couple needs to have a general confession and resolve any and all sins before they marry and should stop Cohabitating if they are.

My wife and I did not live together nor did we have sex before marriage and I can tell you, to do it the right way is way much more meaningful (did it wrong in the past).

We had people say “Hey if you live together you can save $$”

Give up our souls and morals to save $$. Our reply was this, hey guess what, we will pass on that advise and when we marry that will yet be another bounus, to save $$ after we are married so we can live together. Some people.

You know how many people thought it was wierd that we did not live together before marriage. It was amazing.

 

[Pug]

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.

This brings to my mind the concept of receiving a sacrament “worthily”. I think most priests would be concerned that the couple receive marriage in a state of grace. This might lead him to ask them to separate or refrain from relations before marriage. Back when I got married, our priest told the couple to go to confession shortly before marriage. That was just his routine.

 

[Genesis315]

An impediment to marriage would be one person is already married to someone else or that one or both parities do not have the capacity to give the proper consent. The sin of fornication is not such an impediment.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the priest couldn’t refuse to let them marry, but it would not be an actual impediment–more like a grave pastoral concern.

 

[1ke]

What is your support in Church teaching for this analogy between marriage and Eucharist? I am unaware that the Church has ever taught that one must have the same dispositions to receive marriage that one must have to receive the Eucharist.

Edwin

One cannot receive any sacrament (except Baptism and Confession) in a state of mortal sin. If one does, the grace of the Sacrament is not received. But, upon the next good confession it is.

However, receiving the Sacrament in a state of mortal sin does not invalidate the Sacrament.