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

[tee_eff_em]

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?

Is it not the rightful due to all not prohibited by law to allow them to contract marriage? Canon law says it is. (I repeat):

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

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a cohabitating couple.

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a couple intending to use contraception.

Either or both will result in my retraction and expression of apologies.

tee

 

[1ke]

Is it not the rightful due to all not prohibited by law to allow them to contract marriage? Canon law says it is. (I repeat):

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a cohabitating couple.

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a couple intending to use contraception.

Either or both will result in my retraction and expression of apologies.

tee

tee

You are, of course, correct that cohabitation and conraception are not, in and of themselves, impediments to marriage. People are trying to make canon law say and means things it does not say and does not mean.

I don’t think you will get anywhere with people who are set on being more Catholic than the Pope. But, bless you for trying.

 

[setter]

Is it not the rightful due to all not prohibited by law to allow them to contract marriage? Canon law says it is. (I repeat):

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a cohabitating couple.

Show me the law that prohibits contracting marriage to a couple intending to use contraception.

Either or both will result in my retraction and expression of apologies.

tee

Your implication being that a priest does not have the pastoral prerogative to refuse to marry a couple seeking marriage in the Church when there is evidence of their refusal to make a serious attempt to fulfill the sacramental demands of their vows? Sort of like a couple can demand their “right” to a Catholic marriage, pastoral considerations aside?

 

[setter]

tee

You are, of course, correct that cohabitation and conraception are not, in and of themselves, impediments to marriage. People are trying to make canon law say and means things it does not say and does not mean.

I don’t think you will get anywhere with people who are set on being more Catholic than the Pope. But, bless you for trying.

Since when is trying to understand the pastoral dimensions and implications of marriage preparation “being more Catholic than the Pope”?

As you can see, there is discussion amongst bishops regarding the prudence of marrying a cohabitating couple:

“Pastoral Letter on Cohabitation” by Bishop George Speltz of St. Cloud October 18, 1984, Vol. 14: No. 18.

Bishop Speltz outlines the policies regarding cohabitation in his diocese, saying that pastors should not witness the marriage of a couple who refuses to stop cohabiting. “The policy promulgated by Speltz includes guidelines for cases in which a priest. . . deems it advisable that a marriage take place even though a couple is living together.”

“Cohabitation Before Marriage” by Kansas Bishops June 4, 1998, Vol. 28: No. 3.

“A series of questions to assist engaged couples who cohabit and those involved in their marriage preparation ‘to jointly discern whether the couple is ready for marriage’ are found in a pastoral letter issued by the Kansas bishops.” Along with discussing the pastoral needs of cohabiting couples, the bishops “examine nine points identified in recent studies as reasons why engaged couples cohabit.”

“Couples Living Together Before Marriage” by Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, TX June 12, 1997, Vol. 27: No. 4.

Bishop Pfeifer’s letter discusses the pastoral care of couples who live together before marriage. He wants to ensure that those who prepare couples for marriage know how to address this “added complexity.” Although he emphasizes the importance of marital commitment and marital sexuality, he reminds his readers that all “couples have a natural right to marry, and baptized Christians have a supernatural right to the sacraments.”

“Before You Say ‘I Do’” by Bishop D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend October 1, 1998, Vol. 28: No. 16

This text was included in a brochure with a series of questions and answers on marriage and cohabitation. This brochure was given out to engaged couples in the Diocese of Fort Wayne- South Bend, Ind. The brochure says, “We expect couples to be attending Mass regularly (if Catholic), to be living apart and reserving sexual relations until after the wedding, and to be modeling the virtues of charity and justice in their lives. If a pastor evaluates that a couple is unable or unwilling to accept or work toward these expectations, then he may delay marriage in the church while continuing to minister to the couple in the hope of fostering their spiritual and emotional growth. Or he may ask that the wedding ceremony be small.”

usccb.org/laity/marriage/statements.shtml

 

[Sandi]

"i don’t see where they have a valid, sacramental marriage…"

Wouldn’t that be for a priest or some other authority to decide, rather than a layperson?

 

[marybee]

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?

Setter, I was speaking of cohabitation. No need for the snotiness here!

 

[Sandi]

“No need for the snotiness here!”

Maybe there’s no NEED but I see it all over the place on this mb…a supposedly CHRISTIAN one, at that.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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 was speaking of cohabitation. No need for the snotiness here!

Most of us understood you quite well, and yes it is what Paul spoke of. It is only the Holier than thou crowd which thinks a third group should be formed (1) Celibate, (2) Married and a requested (3) Cohabiting which refused to kneel before the laity/bishop/priest yet have no problem with God

 

[tee_eff_em]

Your implication being that a priest does not have the pastoral prerogative to refuse to marry a couple seeking marriage in the Church when there is evidence of their refusal to make a serious attempt to fulfill the sacramental demands of their vows? Sort of like a couple can demand their “right” to a Catholic marriage, pastoral considerations aside?

What I mean to state plainly, without implication, is that cohabitation, in and of itself, is not an impediment to marriage. Intent to contracept, in and of itself, is not an impediment to marriage.

Neither condition automatically invalidates the contracting of a valid sacramental marriage (which opinion I infer from some posters to this thread).

[Possible opinions and implications may be contained below]
Regarding the separation of cohabitants, I’m not even sure a priest has the authority to impose such a condition prior to marriage. Canon 1102 may indicate that he can do so, with the written permission of the Ordinary, but I’m not sure.

Intent to contracept is simply a red herring, wrt this question. A couple could be equally closed to life, and intent on the prevention of conception using NFP methods – Would that make their marriage okay?

These (among others) may be indicators of ill-preparedness for marriage, but you can’t say “You are cohabitating, therefore you are not allowed to marry” (nor :twocents: do I believe it pastorally wise to do so).

tee

 

[fix]

…For the couple who is living together but has a more casual attitude toward this arrangement by not having moved toward a formal marriage, a greater emphasis needs to be placed upon the readiness of the couple to marry at this time, along with the permanent lifetime commitment that marriage involves. In addition, the sacramentality issue would be discussed as with the case in the preceding paragraph. Professional referral may be in order in these cases.

If an engaged couple is seeking to be married in the church more for the sake of appearance or to accommodate the desires of others, the priest is to recommend a postponement of any further consideration of marriage preparation. This is especially to be the case if the couple demonstrates a lack of spiritual or psychosocial maturity for marriage.

Kansas Bishops

 

[setter]

What I mean to state plainly, without implication, is that cohabitation, in and of itself, is not an impediment to marriage. Intent to contracept, in and of itself, is not an impediment to marriage.

Neither condition automatically invalidates the contracting of a valid sacramental marriage (which opinion I infer from some posters to this thread).

[Possible opinions and implications may be contained below]
Regarding the separation of cohabitants, I’m not even sure a priest has the authority to impose such a condition prior to marriage. Canon 1102 may indicate that he can do so, with the written permission of the Ordinary, but I’m not sure.

Intent to contracept is simply a red herring, wrt this question. A couple could be equally closed to life, and intent on the prevention of conception using NFP methods – Would that make their marriage okay?

Thank you for your reiteration …I am not arguing against canon law or the right of baptised couples to a sacramental marriage.

I do find it curious that many divorced couples will cite the very fact of cohabitation as evidence of not having fully understood and hence not able to give full and willful consent to marriage as a sacrament when seeking an annulment. Seems like a bit of catch 22, with the hopes of catching (and saving) as many wayward souls for Christ in the long run. This may be too crude of an analysis for some folks, where the old adage “you get what you expect” no longer applies to our culturally defined and self-indulgent Catholic population.

My hats off to those workers in the vineyard who work to evangelize the lost during the marriage preparation process.

These (among others) may be indicators of ill-preparedness for marriage, but you can’t say “You are cohabitating, therefore you are not allowed to marry” (nor :twocents: do I believe it pastorally wise to do so).

tee

Each priest must stand before the Lord for what he did or didn’t do in his ministry …and as such, each priest ultimately has the final say for the souls entrusted to him for their eternal care.

 

[jmcrae]

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

No, because they aren’t deliberately frustrating the procreative nature of the sex act. Besides, Scripture shows us that even such people, when they are open to life, can be granted a child - Elizabeth and Zachariah, for example, and Abraham and Sarah.

I have seen people receive annulments on the basis that birth control was being used during the marriage, and also on the basis of lying to the priest and to their partner.

On the marriage questionaire, it specifically asks whether the couple plans to use contraception during the marriage. If they say “Yes,” then the wedding will not be performed in the Church. If they say “No,” while intending to do so, then if the marriage later falls apart, they can get a declaration of nullity for lying to the priest.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’d really like to call “baloney”, but I’ve no right to ask you to produce anyone’s declaration of nullity. In this forum I’d prefer to limit us to objective facts.

(Did the declaration of nullity really say *“found to be null because you used contraception” *or “because you lied to a priest”!? Who *made up *these grounds!? :whacky: )

That’s right. I said it. Made up. Neither of those offenses is grounds for nullity.

tee

 

[wanner47]

My mother (a protestant) told me that the priest who married my sister (a protestant) and brother-in-law (practicing Catholic) caused couples to leave his church because he refused to marry them if they were unrepentantly co-habitating (that’s not her exact wording, just the gist of it). She thought that was an awful thing for a priest to do.

My response was, “Good for him! I wish we had more priests like that.”

 

[tee_eff_em]

My mother (a protestant) told me that the priest who married my sister (a protestant) and brother-in-law (practicing Catholic) caused couples to leave his church because he refused to marry them if they were unrepentantly co-habitating (that’s not her exact wording, just the gist of it). She thought that was an awful thing for a priest to do.

My response was, “Good for him! I wish we had more priests like that.”

Yes, good for him.

tee

 

[jmcrae]

I’d really like to call “baloney”, but I’ve no right to ask you to produce anyone’s declaration of nullity. In this forum I’d prefer to limit us to objective facts.

(Did the declaration of nullity really say *“found to be null because you used contraception” *or “because you lied to a priest”!? Who *made up *these grounds!? :whacky: )

That’s right. I said it. Made up. Neither of those offenses is grounds for nullity.

tee

I wasn’t privy to the actual document - just to the conversations afterwards - “Lying to a priest is bad?” or else, “Contraception is bad?” “Why do you ask?” “They gave us the annulment because of it.” Oh. Yeah, then I guess that’s bad. Better luck next time.

Maybe they just check the box that says, “Didn’t have first clue what was going on,” but I do know people in RCIA who’ve gotten Declarations of Nullity on these grounds.

 

[rpp]

I’d really like to call “baloney”, but I’ve no right to ask you to produce anyone’s declaration of nullity. In this forum I’d prefer to limit us to objective facts.

(Did the declaration of nullity really say "found to be null because you used contraception" or “because you lied to a priest”!? Who *made up *these grounds!? :whacky: )

That’s right. I said it. Made up. Neither of those offenses is grounds for nullity.

tee

My annulment did.

You are incorrect in your assertion that neither of these are grounds for annulment. In fact, both are.

Check out this link:

dwc.org/questions/Common_Grounds.shtml

Note number 12 regarding contraception and numbers 4, 7, and 14 - 17 when it comes to deceiving a priest.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My annulment did.

You are incorrect in your assertion that neither of these are grounds for annulment. In fact, both are.

Check out this link:

dwc.org/questions/Common_Grounds.shtml

Note number 12 regarding contraception and numbers 4, 7, and 14 - 17 when it comes to deceiving a priest.

Are you sure the actions did not constitute false grounds for obtaining a Catholic Sacramental Marriage? There is a big difference between -"Our marriage was invalid because one or both willfully intended to ______ or not to ______ as would be required."
That is considerable different than:
*“Our marriage was invalid because during our marriage we __________” *
The latter is not supposed to be handled as an annulment.

 

[rpp]

rpp;2140308:

My annulment did.

You are incorrect in your assertion that neither of these are grounds for annulment. In fact, both are.

Check out this link:

dwc.org/questions/Common_Grounds.shtml

Note number 12 regarding contraception and numbers 4, 7, and 14 - 17 when it comes to deceiving a priest.

Are you sure the actions did not constitute false grounds for obtaining a Catholic Sacramental Marriage? There is a big difference between -"Our marriage was invalid because one or both willfully intended to ______ or not to ______ as would be required."
That is considerable different than:
*“Our marriage was invalid because during our marriage we __________” *
The latter is not supposed to be handled as an annulment.

I am sorry, I am not sure I understand your question.

Firstly my marriage was not Catholic as I was married before I converted to Christianity. (In fact my conversion was one of the main reasons my ex divorced me.) But I did get a Sanation after my Confirmation.

The tribunal, in outlining the numerous grounds for nullity, specifically stated that since before the marriage my (now ex-) wife and I purposely excluded children and used ABC for this purpose was one of the grounds for nullity.

 

[wanner47]

Yes, good for him.

tee

Why on earth would two people who *have no intention following Catholic teaching want to be married in the Catholic Church *in the first place?

My guess is that 95% of the time (and that’s a conservative estimate) is because it’s what’s expected of them by their parents/families/society etc., not because they actually have a desire to follow the Church’s teachings in regard to marriage.

I think that a priest who knows that a couple has NO INTENTION whatsoever of following Catholic teaching and still agrees to marry the couple is committing a graver sin than one who refuses. In fact, I don’t think such a refusal would be a sin at all as long as the priest in question was honestly convinced that the couple had no intention of following Catholic teaching either before or after marriage.

Do you also condomn Mormons who refuse temple weddings to those not in good standing with the Mormon church?