Should Co-habitation be an impediment to marriage?

[chevalier]

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. Even the impediment of abduction ceases when the woman is free, so why make cohabitation an impediment? Sure, sending people to Confession is very much in order, as well as requiring that they abstain from sexual relations. But not an impediment. It would certainly be cruel to prevent people from marrying each other just because they lived together and had sex for some time, if this has been confessed and they have been absolved. There is one such impediment, but it’s killing or having killed one’s own or the other person’s spouse so that one could marry that person. Even that impediment is not made absolute. So, sexual cohabitation should at least be a dispensible impediment.

Or perhaps you mean sexual cohabitation as an impediment which can be dispensed but is still there to make sure people who have engaged in it don’t go on marrying other people? Well… I suppose that’s more reasonable than making sexual cohabitation an impediment from marriage specifically between those who have engaged in it. Well, but why cohabitation and not a one night stand? Why not going to prostitutes? Why not regular fornication without cohabitation?

Anyway, I can see why people who have fornicated or engaged openly in concubinage should be required to undergo some counselling before marriage. I can see why the bride or groom should be informed of such previous history. But I can’t really see it as an impediment… no. Remember that if one specifically intends to marry a virgin and other lies about it, that’s error as to person, an impediment which already exists (or rather a defect of consent).

 

[DJMarshall85]

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

I know what you mean. My sister and her fiancee, both of whom aren’t even Christian, do not live together. I’ve gotten so many comments from people. They think that somehow it is unreasonable to wait to live together…

God bless,
Dean

 

[Sarabande]

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

I agree. My husband and I were also in the minority and especially in regards to being chaste prior to marriage. I had family members who assumed that we were engaging in sexual relations because everyone else in our age group were doing it and they did it themselves. They got my mother and father all in a tizzy and had them all worried about me, so that I had to reassure them that we were still virgins and waiting till the wedding night. It was so ridiculous that they were even discussing my private life, especially when I didn’t even see them often enough for them to even make that assumption. And they weren’t discussing it because they were concerned about me. They believed premarital sex was fine. They just couldn’t believe that I would wait - not that I even talked about it with them. We’re minding our own business and trying to do the right thing, and we get that. We weren’t even living together and I regularly had my sister as a chaperone for us, especially when we were engaged, so that we could avoid “the occasion to sin”. It truly is amazing.

 

[palmas85]

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

Actually what makes no sense is for two people to live together prior to marriage. What exactly are they accomplishing by doing it? Getting to know each other? That all goes out the window with the first sexual contact anyway. Saving money by sharing finances? A big stretch to justify that one.

If you can give me one good solid reason maybe I’ll change my opinion, but I’ve been around way too long to think that the overwhelming majority of couples could live together and not engage in sexual relations.

Sorry, I just don’t buy it…

 

[1ke]

Actually what makes no sense is for two people to live together prior to marriage. What exactly are they accomplishing by doing it? Getting to know each other? That all goes out the window with the first sexual contact anyway. Saving money by sharing finances? A big stretch to justify that one.

If you can give me one good solid reason maybe I’ll change my opinion, but I’ve been around way too long to think that the overwhelming majority of couples could live together and not engage in sexual relations.

Sorry, I just don’t buy it…

No one in this thread is advocating people cohabiting. What we are explaining is that cohabitation is not now, nor should it be, an impediment to marriage.

There is a false notion here of what an impediment is.
.

 

[agapewolf]

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.

I’d like to approach this subject from a different angle…springboarding off of this post…

I think that cohabitation and pre-marital sex are huge in factors of consent.

Co-habitation… when a couple already owns a couch/dog/house, kitchen utensils together,…how free are they to trully discern marriage? When they have their daily habits down…how free are they? the questions are endless…

Pre-marital sex- the bonding that God designed for married couples to have…being misused without the grace of the sacrament… how free are they?
using sex as a cover up of bigger issues…how free are they?

Not being able to say no to sex or living together…justifying it in some way? That isn’t freedom…thats enslavement to sin. (and to each other).

I don’t know what official “impediments” are… but I know for sure that all of these elements could seriously play into someone feeling trapped subconsciously… not being able to say no.

I think this idea should be a serious consideration…in guarding the sacraments. Not necessarily an official impediment, but having Priests be more strict so that the sacrament is guarded.

 

[Pug]

Actually what makes no sense is for two people to live together prior to marriage. What exactly are they accomplishing by doing it? Getting to know each other? That all goes out the window with the first sexual contact anyway. Saving money by sharing finances? A big stretch to justify that one.

I wonder, maybe it is partly a convenience thing. If they spend all their free time together, then perhaps it is easier to live in the same place rather than have one party travel home and night and then come back in the morning. I’m not saying that is a reason, but I think it still might work that way. Also, if you are both living in apartments, it is *substantially *cheaper to cut that down to one apartment. I know, if they could find roommates of their own sex, but that can be difficult. I can see how if one of them loses their current roommate, that this would be an incentive to start living together.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

I wonder, maybe it is partly a convenience thing. If they spend all their free time together, then perhaps it is easier to live in the same place rather than have one party travel home and night and then come back in the morning. I’m not saying that is a reason, but I think it still might work that way. Also, if you are both living in apartments, it is *substantially *cheaper to cut that down to one apartment. I know, if they could find roommates of their own sex, but that can be difficult. I can see how if one of them loses their current roommate, that this would be an incentive to start living together.

We have a winner!

 

[palmas85]

I wonder, maybe it is partly a convenience thing. If they spend all their free time together, then perhaps it is easier to live in the same place rather than have one party travel home and night and then come back in the morning. I’m not saying that is a reason, but I think it still might work that way. Also, if you are both living in apartments, it is *substantially *cheaper to cut that down to one apartment. I know, if they could find roommates of their own sex, but that can be difficult. I can see how if one of them loses their current roommate, that this would be an incentive to start living together.

And you truly believe that they will live together as brother and sister when the odds are they are not living as brother and sister now?

This whole acceptance of living together and by extension pre marital sex, which does happen most of the time, is, I feel one of the bigger problems we are facing. Once you lose the sacredness of sexual union between a man and a woman what do you have left? I’ll tell you, nothing. It all goes and leaves people bitter, disillusioned and constantly seeking something that they will probably never find.

 

[palmas85]

No one in this thread is advocating people cohabiting. What we are explaining is that cohabitation is not now, nor should it be, an impediment to marriage.

There is a false notion here of what an impediment is.
.

I actually know what an impediment is. It is an obstacle. So if two people are already living together apparently as man and wife, why should the Church bless the union? The couple has already shown exactly what is important to them and it is not the sacrament of marriage. If it was, I’m quite sure they could have waited before setting up housekeeping together.

Their living together is in fact the biggest impediment to a truly sacramental union. Once you have made a mockery of the institution, why try to grab it? You have already shown that it means nothing to you.

 

[Sarabande]

I wonder, maybe it is partly a convenience thing. If they spend all their free time together, then perhaps it is easier to live in the same place rather than have one party travel home and night and then come back in the morning. I’m not saying that is a reason, but I think it still might work that way. Also, if you are both living in apartments, it is *substantially *cheaper to cut that down to one apartment. I know, if they could find roommates of their own sex, but that can be difficult. I can see how if one of them loses their current roommate, that this would be an incentive to start living together.

This is all true because many of our peers have expressed just that in reasons for living together, but then they really still must think about what marriage truly is and what is morally right and wrong. I do realize that maybe some couples can live together as brother and sister, but I can guarantee that most young, hot-blooded people would need A LOT of strength if they were lilving together.

Believe me… it would have been much more convenient if my husband and I moved in with each other. For two years prior to our marriage, I worked 3 different jobs, 7 days a week to stay afloat, shared a tiny one-bedroom apartment with my sister, paid for weekly music lessons as I am a musician (in NYC, lessons aren’t cheap), paid for my own health insurance, car insurance, and planned a wedding. My husband just entered the workforce, but not making much either (he’s a geologist). During this time he bought a one-bedroom condo, which I moved into WHEN we got married. When he was buying it, I did not want to go into buying it with him, even though that would have helped in getting a bigger place. I also did not want my name on any of the documents. He had a difficult time paying even the very low mortgage payments, but to me, that was his place, and my apartment was mine. Something that big should not be shared prior to marriage, in my opinion.

Anyway, we conciously made sacrifices because of what we beleived to be morally right and wrong. It definitely wasn’t easy. I don’t judge couples who do choose a different route, but depending on their personalities and what they know, they need to be told gently or harshly how their decisions now can affect them later and today.

Thinking about it more, I really do think priests should take into consideration couples co-habitation status. Some are too lax about it, as I know many who were never even asked if they lived together, or if they were, the priest would do nothing more about it. In some ways, I can see how some priests don’t want to push couples away from the Church, but at the same time, how does accomodating them make them good witnesses of the Church?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I actually know what an impediment is. It is an obstacle. So if two people are already living together apparently as man and wife, why should the Church bless the union? The couple has already shown exactly what is important to them and it is not the sacrament of marriage. If it was, I’m quite sure they could have waited before setting up housekeeping together.

Their living together is in fact the biggest impediment to a truly sacramental union. Once you have made a mockery of the institution, why try to grab it? You have already shown that it means nothing to you.

Yes, the Church should definitely be in the business of turning people out, not bringing them to Christ.

tee

 

[cameron_lansing]

I suspect the use of the term “impediment” in this poll is made in a specific context with a specific meaning, and perhaps several references will contribute to greater clarity.

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

Canon 1073 A diriment impediment renders a person incapable of contracting marriage validly.

Canon 1075 §1. The supreme authority of the Church alone has the competency to declare authentically when divine law prohibits or voids a marriage. §2. Only the supreme authority has the right to establish other impediments for the baptized.

It is helpful to distinguish that from prohibition which may — but does not have to— invalidate marriage as well as make its celebration illicit (against the law).

Canon 1077 §1. In a special case, the local ordinary can prohibit marriage for his own subjects residing anywhere and for all actually present in his own territory but only for a time, for a grave cause, and for as long as the cause continues. §2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can add a nullifying clause to a prohibition.

(Normal tribunals can also inflict prohibitions but not invalidating prohibitions. Broadly stated, this can be done in the case of perpetual incapacity or simulation of marital consent.)

 

[childofmary1143]

Yes, the Church should definitely be in the business of turning people out, not bringing them to Christ.

tee

The Church can’t bring people to Christ if they don’t want to be brought to Christ.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The Church can’t bring people to Christ if they don’t want to be brought to Christ.

*They: “Please let us regularize our relationship, so that we may no longer be separating ourselves from God.”

Church: “Too late.”*

Oh, that’s attractive – Bah.

:twocents:
tee

 

[agapewolf]

*They: “Please let us regularize our relationship, so that we may no longer be separating ourselves from God.”

Church: “Too late.”*

Oh, that’s attractive – Bah.

:twocents:
tee

Most of the time, that is not what “they” are saying. “THEY” are saying:

Even though we already live like we are married by playing house, we want a pretty church wedding…because we want OUR day with the white dress, the flowers and the reception…because thats what people do … (and the Church doesn’t know what she’s talking about in regards to marriage and sex).

That is what “they” are saying.

I’m not arguing for an official “impediment” to be made here, I have no opinion, but the Church should definately take these folks carefully and do some better prep at least.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Apart from the meaning of “impediment” which I referenced above, I do not believe that this thread has considered how John Paul II addressed this in Familiaris Consortio, and recommend that it be reviewed.

It is available at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

See the section on De Facto Free Unions, number 81. In part, he says

“The pastors and the ecclesial community should take care to become acquainted with such situations and their actual causes, case by case. They should make tactful and respectful contact with the couples concerned, and enlighten them patiently, correct them charitably and show them the witness of Christian family life, in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation. But above all there must be a campaign of prevention, by fostering the sense of fidelity in the whole moral and religious training of the young, instructing them concerning the conditions and structures that favor such fidelity, without which there is no true freedom; they must be helped to reach spiritual maturity and enabled to understand the rich human and supernatural reality of marriage as a sacrament.”

He also treats Catholics in Civil Marriages in number 82.

 

[bilop]

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.

Of course they need confession. What I am saying is that they will no longer be fornicating once they are married, so the sin in question will not be a sin.

Rember folks, we are ALL sinners. Should sin now be a barrier to all the sacraments? That would leave us in a bad place.

God Bless

 

[Sarabande]

Most of the time, that is not what “they” are saying. “THEY” are saying:

Even though we already live like we are married by playing house, we want a pretty church wedding…because we want OUR day with the white dress, the flowers and the reception…because thats what people do … (and the Church doesn’t know what she’s talking about in regards to marriage and sex).

That is what “they” are saying.

I’m not arguing for an official “impediment” to be made here, I have no opinion, but the Church should definately take these folks carefully and do some better prep at least.

I believe what agapewolf stated is really more of the norm. If you go on the bridal forums, you will see that many of those Catholic couples really don’t have a clue about what it is to have a Sacramental marriage. They get really upset at priests who refuse to marry them or advises them to refrain from intimacy or living together prior to marriage. They claim that the Church has no right to “pry” into their private lives and “who are they to say we can’t get married because we are sexually active and living together?” Many of them on those forums do believe that the Church is “old-fashioned” and needs to get with the times in regards to sex and marriage. Most of my peers are in their 20s and early 30s. I hear this kind of talk often. The secular way of life is a very strong influence for people in my age groups and younger, even if they were brought up in good, Catholic households.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do know there are people out there who made mistakes in their lives and realize them, and are doing the best they can within their ability and power to make things right by entering into a Sacramental marriage with the blessing of God. And I believe that priests, friends and family who see this and are concerned about it will work with those couples who sincerely want to do right.

But, truly, for the most part, it can become depressing when you see the number of bridal couples who do not and will not reflect and contemplate on why and that what they are doing is truly hurting themselves, their faith and their God. And being a musician who does a lot of weddings, I always wonder how many are actually doing it because they truly understand and believe in a Sacramental marriage. I hate feeling that way, but it does cross my mind and I am sad for those who really don’t understand it at all. It’s a strange thing, too. You can tell when it’s all a show and when there is truly something spiritual there. I’ve done enough weddings to see that. Even our own guests – some not even Catholic – told us that our wedding was one of the most spiritual and blessed they ever attended. Our priest even said as much during the homily during our mass. I can see that as well with other weddings I’ve attended and sung for.

 

[Sure]

Apart from the meaning of “impediment” which I referenced above, I do not believe that this thread has considered how John Paul II addressed this in Familiaris Consortio, and recommend that it be reviewed.

It is available at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

See the section on De Facto Free Unions, number 81. In part, he says

“The pastors and the ecclesial community should take care to become acquainted with such situations and their actual causes, case by case. They should make tactful and respectful contact with the couples concerned, and enlighten them patiently, correct them charitably and show them the witness of Christian family life, in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation. But above all there must be a campaign of prevention, by fostering the sense of fidelity in the whole moral and religious training of the young, instructing them concerning the conditions and structures that favor such fidelity, without which there is no true freedom; they must be helped to reach spiritual maturity and enabled to understand the rich human and supernatural reality of marriage as a sacrament.”

He also treats Catholics in Civil Marriages in number 82.

I believe Pope John Paul II was speaking more of people who are living together with children. In these cases, it is NOT recommended that the couple live apart as that would tear apart the “family”. Rather, these couples are called to live chastely until their marriage can be regularized.

On anothern note, it seems that much of this thread is looking at the sexual relationship. People have commented that it is “okay” to live together if the couple can be celibate. There are two issues with this. The first is the obvious occasion of sin. However, even if the couple has amazing self control and this does not present an occasion of sin, there is still the sin of scandal. The family is the building block of our society. When two unmarried people live together, they are showing the world that pre-marital sex is “okay” even if they remain chaste! The problem is especially grave when the two people attend Mass together. They are showing the world that the idea of reserving a sexual relationship and the intimacy of living together for marriage is not as important as cheaper rent!

Should living together be an impediment? Not in a formal sense. Should a priest refuse to witness the marriage of a couple living together? Absolutely (unless there are children involved). The couple is unfit to enter into Christian Marriage. Once they have lived apart and demonstrated their faithfulness, they ought to be married.