Should cohabitating or ABC endorsing couples be allowed a Catholic wedding?

[otjm]

Why would the Church not want a cohabitating couple to end that sinful behavior by the act of marriage?

Perhaps because in part, the Church is wise enough to know that there more than likely has not been a well-laid foundation for marriage. And that is certainly backed up by statistics of divorce rates between those who lived together prior to marriage, and those who were chaste.

 

[KCT]

Questions: How was this addressed as being contradictory to sacramental vows? Who made the decision to allow such couples to marry under such a false premise?

The priest marrying them decides, not the couple doing marriage prep. —KCT

 

[Leeta]

The priest can ask the couple ouside of confession and in confession and he can give them the penace of having separate living quarters before the wedding. He can also ask them about contraception. I’ve had priests ask me directly in confession. Now people can lie of course, but they are really putting their souls and their marriages in danger if they lie in confession. Also, confession is necessary before a sacramental marriage. If they refuse to confess a serious sin, such as cohabiting, then their confession is invalid and they receive the sacrament of marriage in a state of sin. If they refuse to make amends by separating, then their repentance is not sincere and they receive no graces from that confession. So they recieve no graces from the sacrament of marriage and their marriage has no supernatural power.
The priest has a lot of responsiblity. He will be held accountable to God for knowingly witnessing the marriage of a couple in a state of serious sin.
Also, a couple can later come back and get an annulment if they were not held accountable for cohabiting and contracepting by the Church through the priest.

 

[Mamastrocity]

My understanding is that when a co-habitant couple comes to the priest to begin marriage prep, they have to demonstrate to that priest that they are serious about entering into the sacrament. It’s up to the priest to discern whether or not the couple in question is serious and I would imagine that they would need to be active in the parish–attending Mass every week, the sacrament of reconciliation, and generally living as good catholics. They are called to live chastely during their marriage prep and to practice abstinence. Before receiving the sacraments of communion, confirmation and marriage, as catholics, we must be in a state of grace and therefore attend confession before hand–so if the couple “slips up,” they at least have the opportunity to enter into the sacrament honestly.

I’m not married in the church yet–my husband and I were married by a Baptist minister (who happens to be my father-in-law) in a civil ceremony and so I’m unable to take communion until we have our marriage blessed. But until we do so, we are to practice abstinence and it’s up me to demonstrate in our marriage prep that I intend to live in communion with the church within my marriage, both before and after receiving the sacrament.

 

[childofmary1143]

Is there ever any reason why a co-habitating or planning to use ABC couple should be allowed to marry in the Church? This is my question since the statistical norm for pre-marriage couples is 50 - 80% rate for cohabitation and less than a 5% rate of NFP practicing Catholic as their method of choice for family planning.

If I was the Priest in question and such a couple were to present themselves to me I would tell them that living together was a sin and that they should confess of that. If I felt that they were sincere in their repentance then I would proceed to allow them to marry.

However if any couple told me that they use and still plan to use contraception I would tell them that I can’t marry them.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If I was the Priest in question and such a couple were to present themselves to me I would tell them that living together was a sin and that they should confess of that. If I felt that they were sincere in their repentance then I would proceed to allow them to marry.

However if any couple told me that they use and still plan to use contraception I would tell them that I can’t marry them.

Then you would be doing them an injustice.

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

Neither cohabitation nor intent to contracept (nor keeping other gods before Him, nor failing to keep holy the sabbath, nor …) raises an impediment to marriage. The end.

tee

 

[Bobby_Jim]

When you come down to it, there’s not a whole lot the church can do. I have known of couples intentionally deceiving the church on this matter.

E.g. the priest insists the cohabiting couple live separately. So the couple says “ok”, the bride says she’ll move back home, and for further correspondence uses the bride’s parents’ address, when in point of fact they continue to live together.

Or the priest may say “if you continue to live together it must be as brother and sister”. In the one case I knew of like that, the couple says, “yeah, sure” but it was then treated by the couple as a big joke. (And they were divorced within a year of the wedding).

I think most priests or lay people who do wedding prep strongly recommend that couples not cohabit, and explain why. Beyond that, I don’t think priests are going to set up 24-hour video monitoring of the couples’ residences, or send out private investigators to tail the bride & groom. People intent on deceiving the church are going to get away with it.

 

[bluerose]

True story. Sad, but true:

A girl I worked with (who was a non-Catholic) was marrying a Catholic man in a Catholic ceremony. Just as she was starting the marriage prep, she asked one of our co-workers (a divorced, co-habitating and non-practicing Catholic ) about the marriage prep. The woman said, “If you’re on the Pill or you don’t want to have any kids, keep it to yourself and don’t tell the priest!”

When I heard about it later on, I confronted the woman and told her she was encouraging this girl to enter an invalid marriage.

The woman’s response? “So if it doesn’t work out, it’ll be easier for them to get an annulment!”

:banghead:

 

[tee_eff_em]

When I heard about it later on, I confronted the woman and told her she was encouraging this girl to enter an invalid marriage.

On what ground?

:banghead: indeed

tee
that married sinner

 

[jmcrae]

On what ground?

False pretenses: pretending to know and understand the Catholic teaching on marriage, and entering into marriage with the intention to frustrate the procreative aspect of the sexual union.

 

[tee_eff_em]

False pretenses: pretending to know and understand the Catholic teaching on marriage, and entering into marriage with the intention to frustrate the procreative aspect of the sexual union.

Can you tell me, specifically, which canon you mean?

tee
married sinner

 

[jmcrae]

Can you tell me, specifically, which canon you mean?

tee
married sinner

Can. 1055 ß1 indicates that a marriage is a permanent union between man and woman, ordered toward the procreation of children.

The Catechism tells us that the use of contraceptives is forbidden in marriage. (Sex itself is forbidden outside of marriage.)

Can. 1061 ß1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

• seems to assume that sex is ordered towards unity and procreation, meaning that contraceptives are not being used.

Can. 1096 ß1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

ß2 This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Can. 1097 ß1 Error about a person renders a marriage invalid.

ß2 Error about a quality of the person, even though it be the reason for the contract, does not render a marriage invalid unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.

• seems to suggest that lying to one’s future spouse and to the priest who will be performing the ceremony causes the validity of the marriage to be in doubt.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Can. 1055 ß1 indicates that a marriage is a permanent union between man and woman, ordered toward the procreation of children.

“Ordered toward” – By your reasoning, post-menopausal women and other naturally infertile persons invalidly attempt marriage?

The Catechism tells us that the use of contraceptives is forbidden in marriage. (Sex itself is forbidden outside of marriage.)

The Catechism teaches us many things. But it does not tell us that being a sinner invalidates marriage. (Thank God!)

Can. 1061 ß1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring

Can. 1061 ß2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1096 ß1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

Yes, some kinds of deception can invalidate an attempted marriage. If one party of the couple intends to not have children, in deception of the other, that can do it. What of the couple who agrees to not have children? No deception is involved there.

And from what part of the canons do you infer that lying to a priest (wrt the use of contraception) invalidates the marriage? (And I have no idea why you feel Can. 1096 is relevant here?)

tee
still the sinner, still married

 

[Texas_Roofer]

On what ground?

:banghead: indeed

tee
that married sinner

I agree if anyone knows of a marriage in the Church in which either party was truly sin free, please point it out to me. I have never seen a sin free person. BTW cohabitation is not a sin at all, fornication is. Why would one feel repentance is invalid if the sin were fornication? Second if contraception were being used in place of sterilization would that not show substantial proof the marriage is open to children? The Priest can refuse the marriage on grounds the sacrament can not be received until repenting of moral sins however that only requires a confession of such sins before the marriage. The Priest would then have to refuse absolution on ground the person did not appear contrite. A slippery slope there. It would seem wiser to schedule a few minutes alone with each party immediately before the marriage for confession.

 

[childofmary1143]

Second if contraception were being used in place of sterilization would that not show substantial proof the marriage is open to children?

Contraception proves that the couple is open to life because its not sterilization??

Baloney it is.

 

[JLSacred]

Then you would be doing them an injustice.

Neither cohabitation nor intent to contracept (nor keeping other gods before Him, nor failing to keep holy the sabbath, nor …) raises an impediment to marriage. The end.

tee

Agree. People are human and sometimes it takes time for people to grow in the faith. People who used contraception when they married can have a change of heart down the road and start practicing NFP.

Frankly, some people are so sexually infatuated with one another in the beginning of their relationship, they will shack up and use contraception, but as the fires cool a bit, they can get a handle on things and start living more in line with the Church teaching. Better to gently bring them into the fold than push them away with too much harshness.

 

[setter]

Then you would be doing them an injustice.

JUSTICE. Defn: As a virtue, it is the constant and permanent determination to give everyone his or her rightful due. It is a habitual inclination of the will and therefore always recognizes each one’s rights, under any and all circumstances. The rights in question are whatever belongs to a person as an individual who is distinct from the one who practices justice. The essence of justice, then, as compared with charity, consists in the distinction between a person and his or her neighbor; whereas charity is based on the union existing between the one who loves and the person loved so that the practice of charity regards the neighbor as another self. link

But would not charity in the proper exercise of pastoral sensitivity necessarily preclude allowing a wrongheaded couple from entering into sacramental union under false pretense?

Neither cohabitation nor intent to contracept (nor keeping other gods before Him, nor failing to keep holy the sabbath, nor …) raises an impediment to marriage. The end.

tee

The Vatican document “PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE
FAMILY ~ PREPARATION FOR THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE”, makes it clear that both awareness of Church teaching and behavior changes in accord with Church teaching are essential aspects of premariage (“proximate”) preparation.

1. Therefore, this period should not only be for theoretical study but also for formation during which the engaged, with the help of grace and by avoiding all forms of sin, will prepare to give themselves as a couple to Christ who sustains, purifies and ennobles the engagement and married life. In this way, premarital chastity takes on its full meaning and rules out any cohabitation, premarital relations, and other practices, such as mariage coutumier, in the process of making love grow.

1. The pastoral workers and persons in charge must have a solid doctrinal preparation and unquestionable fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church so that they will be able to transmit the truths of the faith and the responsibilities connected with marriage with sufficient in-depth knowledge and life witness.

1. The final result of this period of proximate preparation should be a clear awareness of the essential characteristics of Christian marriage: unity, fidelity, indissolubility, fruitfulness; the conscience of faith regarding the priority of the sacramental Grace which associates the spouses, as subjects and ministers of the sacrament, to the love of Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church; the willingness to carry out the mission proper to families in the educational, social and ecclesial areas.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_13051996_preparation-for-marriage_en.html

 

[setter]

Agree. People are human and sometimes it takes time for people to grow in the faith. People who used contraception when they married can have a change of heart down the road and start practicing NFP.

How can a sacramental marriage be fully entered into when one of the fundamental and essential aspects which make it a sign of the sacred is being intentionally frustrated by the couple exchanging vows? Sort of like, “Let’s cut the ribbon and launch your ship, but beware that you have a leaking hull, and hopefully you will one day come to accept this and make the necessary repairs” …Quite the bon voyage of allowing a wrongheaded couple to stumble of the starting block on their marriage journey.

Frankly, some people are so sexually infatuated with one another in the beginning of their relationship, they will shack up and use contraception, but as the fires cool a bit, they can get a handle on things and start living more in line with the Church teaching. Better to gently bring them into the fold than push them away with too much harshness.

I totally agree, but, why would this not all occur, if only on a perfunctory/compliance level, before the actual wedding day?

Question: Why should one have the hope or expectation that a known contracepting couple allowed to marry in the Church will have a change of heart during their Catholic marriage?

 

[marybee]

I thought that was kind of what saint paul was referring to when he said it was better to marry than to burn!

 

[setter]

I thought that was kind of what saint paul was referring to when he said it was better to marry than to burn!

What does this have to do with a couple intent on using contraception and unwilling to refrain from sexual relations during the period of premarriage preparation?