"This is the real world - Not 'Catholic Answers'"

[kleary]

Yes folks you heard it correctly from a local parish here in Southern New Jersey!

The cause of all the strife in our family was indeed caused by a local parish here in our area who advised my brother to get married civilly to his then pregnant girlfriend and then later get his marriage convalidated since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet.

When I called them they told me, “Yes it is true, sometimes we tell couples to do that”. I responded, " ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists have stated that it is mortal sin to do such thing and that you are wrong to advise people to do that."

The response from the parish, “This is the real world, not Catholic Answers.”

Ken

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

After he married a couple that had been cohabiting for several years (and joking about it during the wedding), I remember asking my pastor if Canon Law didn’t require the couple to be living separate and chaste for six months prior to marriage. He turned red and said angrily that Canon Law was written by a bunch of old men in Rome that knew nothing about the “real world.” They are nice “ideals” to strive for, but unrealistic. His answer seemed to sum up the mentality of a large number of priests of his generation. Pray for your priest – that is what I had to do. That was years ago, and I still pray for him.

 

[Jeanette_L]

The sad thing is that when they pass from this world, they will find out what the “real world” was indeed. Lord have mercy on those who are leading others in the wrong path, there are so many of them.

 

[Pug]

" ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists have stated that it is mortal sin to do such thing and that you are wrong to advise people to do that."

Is this discussion or statement available online somewhere?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

And Jesus told us who is the Prince of this “real” world.

 

[John_Higgins]

Any priest I’ve heard on Relevant Radio or other Catholic radio stations would preface a comment about the priest’s decision with something like “I don’t know enough about the circumstances to countermand another priest’s pastoral decision…” Then he might well say if this and this happened, I would tell them this.

You don’t know what was told that priest; I recommend you give him the same courtesy his fellow clerics would.

John

 

[Shae]

Yes folks you heard it correctly from a local parish here in Southern New Jersey!

The cause of all the strife in our family was indeed caused by a local parish here in our area who advised my brother to get married civilly to his then pregnant girlfriend and then later get his marriage convalidated since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet.

When I called them they told me, “Yes it is true, sometimes we tell couples to do that”. I responded, " ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists have stated that it is mortal sin to do such thing and that you are wrong to advise people to do that."

The response from the parish, “This is the real world, not Catholic Answers.”

Ken

Yes, something similar happened to myself. I quoted something on a thread from here at Catholic Answers to a mercy sister who is my friend of mine, actually it was the thread about mints and gum before the eucharist. Her reply was “Dont take too much seriously what you read on the net. There are so many extreme fundamentalists out there” which in a sense it a little relief to me, because I could get so stressed about reading the posts on here. Like God would hit me with a sledge hammer for doing the wrong thing, this can be impression I get here too. My sister friend is so devout and holy. So I’ll go with her, but fore most I will keep my eyes on God.

Shae

 

[a_cermak]

There are valid civil reasons to have a civil marriage before giving birth to a child. The biggest is to lock in paternity (if you are the father.) Yes, you can get a court order for a paternity test, but being the husband of the woman at birth is a better guarantee of your parental rights. Another, and frequently of equal or greater import is benefits such as health insurance which may only cover a spouse but not a live-in.

If there is a baby involved, then the couple have already violated the biggie (no sex without marriage). I fail to see how a civil marriage is a worse sin than sex outside of marriage. The civil marriage itself is not a sin. Many Christians in Europe get a civil marriage and then go to the Church for the Sacrament. The only thing wrong with a civil marriage is if a couple uses it as a pretext to have sex without the Church having provided the Sacrament of Marriage. Since the horse is already out of the stable on that one…

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes folks you heard it correctly from a local parish here in Southern New Jersey!

The cause of all the strife in our family was indeed caused by a local parish here in our area who advised my brother to get married civilly to his then pregnant girlfriend and then later get his marriage convalidated since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet.

When I called them they told me, “Yes it is true, sometimes we tell couples to do that”. I responded, " ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists have stated that it is mortal sin to do such thing and that you are wrong to advise people to do that."

The response from the parish, “This is the real world, not Catholic Answers.”

Ken

I wouldn’t quote ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists. Instead, I would ask them for a church reference and then quote that church reference.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I remember asking my pastor if Canon Law didn’t require the couple to be living separate and chaste for six months prior to marriage. He turned red and said angrily that Canon Law was written by a bunch of old men in Rome that knew nothing about the “real world.” They are nice “ideals” to strive for, but unrealistic.

And where does he get his authority from as Pastor?

 

[Kielbasi]

I remember asking my pastor if Canon Law didn’t require the couple to be living separate and chaste for six months prior to marriage. .

I don’t think there is any 6 month waiting period mandated by Canon Law. Now, of course, individual dioceses have waiting periods, but it ain’t in the Code of Canon Law, I don’t believe.

 

[Karin]

Yes folks you heard it correctly from a local parish here in Southern New Jersey!

The cause of all the strife in our family was indeed caused by a local parish here in our area who advised my brother to get married civilly to his then pregnant girlfriend and then later get his marriage convalidated since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet.

When I called them they told me, “Yes it is true, sometimes we tell couples to do that”. I responded, " ‘Catholic Answers’ apologists have stated that it is mortal sin to do such thing and that you are wrong to advise people to do that."

The response from the parish, “This is the real world, not Catholic Answers.”

Ken

Ken- Come on up to Northern NJ…we have orthodox parishes up here!!!

 

[bluerose]

About a year ago, I posted to the “Ask an Apologist” forum a question concerning my widowed brother-in-law and the fact that he was dating a divorced woman who hadn’t even started the annulment process yet, but one of our local priests told him that it was “almost sure to be granted, although it could take up to two years”.

Fr. Vincent Serpa (on the AAA Forum) told me, in no uncertain terms, that if the annulment had not already been granted, THEY COULD NOT DATE, nor exchange “physical signs of affection” (i.e. kissing, handholding, etc.) reserved for legitimately engaged couples. If the marriage had not been declared null and void by the tribunal, then the woman was still married in the eyes of the church and could not date, much less become engaged or married (as stated in the circumstances given by the OP.) Doing so would constitute a state of adultery.

Petitioning for an annulment does not guarantee that it will be granted. Therefore, it is prudent to refrain from entering into relationships until one knows for certain that the annulment has indeed been granted. Any priest who not only condones but encourages couples “waiting on an annulment” to get married is condoning and encouraging them to commit a mortal sin.

 

[chotock]

There are valid civil reasons to have a civil marriage before giving birth to a child. The biggest is to lock in paternity (if you are the father.) Yes, you can get a court order for a paternity test, but being the husband of the woman at birth is a better guarantee of your parental rights. Another, and frequently of equal or greater import is benefits such as health insurance which may only cover a spouse but not a live-in.

If there is a baby involved, then the couple have already violated the biggie (no sex without marriage). I fail to see how a civil marriage is a worse sin than sex outside of marriage. The civil marriage itself is not a sin. Many Christians in Europe get a civil marriage and then go to the Church for the Sacrament. The only thing wrong with a civil marriage is if a couple uses it as a pretext to have sex without the Church having provided the Sacrament of Marriage. Since the horse is already out of the stable on that one…

Excellent points!! Seems rather sad that some folks keep forgetting there is a baby involved here, which is the greater sin, adutery, or poor care of a child due to inavailability of good health services?

 

[Karin]

Excellent points!! Seems rather sad that some folks keep forgetting there is a baby involved here, which is the greater sin, adutery, or poor care of a child due to inavailability of good health services?

Seems that you are forgetting that the current wife in the eyes of the Church is already married to someone else…there is NO guarantee that she will be granted an annulment.
" since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet"

 

[prv]

Yes, something similar happened to myself. I quoted something on a thread from here at Catholic Answers to a mercy sister who is my friend of mine, actually it was the thread about mints and gum before the eucharist. Her reply was “Dont take too much seriously what you read on the net. There are so many extreme fundamentalists out there” which in a sense it a little relief to me, because I could get so stressed about reading the posts on here. Like God would hit me with a sledge hammer for doing the wrong thing, this can be impression I get here too. My sister friend is so devout and holy. So I’ll go with her, but fore most I will keep my eyes on God.

Shae

There is a bunch of nonsense on the web, agreed; there is also much good on the web. The problem is that many people don’t know how to discern one from the other, they mistake what is good for evil and vice versa. Well, as for the parish, I can only say,

Kyrie Eleison (sp?)

 

[Scottgun]

Excellent points!! Seems rather sad that some folks keep forgetting there is a baby involved here, which is the greater sin, adutery, or poor care of a child due to inavailability of good health services?

Adultery because it is objective.
Inavailibility of good health insurance isn’t even necessarily an issue. We don’t get to do objective wrongs to ward off hypothetical scenarios.

 

[chotock]

Seems that you are forgetting that the current wife in the eyes of the Church is already married to someone else…there is NO guarantee that she will be granted an annulment.
" since they were waiting for her annulment and it hadn’t come through yet"

I am more concerned over the care of the child than the status of the wife’s previous marriage. I would rather a man and woman live together in sin so that they can consolidate expenditures and have good health coverage for an infant, than to hope that the mother has the correct income levels to get whatever poor health care the state provides.

It is tragic that the couple could not wait until they were validly married before they had sex. It is a testement to the dissoulution of morals in today’s society. I am encouraged by this couple in the fact the wife IS working on an annulment.

 

[Karin]

I am more concerned over the care of the child than the status of the wife’s previous marriage. I would rather a man and woman live together in sin so that they can consolidate expenditures and have good health coverage for an infant, than to hope that the mother has the correct income levels to get whatever poor health care the state provides.

It is tragic that the couple could not wait until they were validly married before they had sex. It is a testement to the dissoulution of morals in today’s society. I am encouraged by this couple in the fact the wife IS working on an annulment.

would you still be impressed if the annulment was not granted and they still carried on this way?
Also as a side note …you DO NOT need to be married to provide health insurance for your child nor do you need to be married to provide support for your child

 

[kleary]

There are valid civil reasons to have a civil marriage before giving birth to a child. The biggest is to lock in paternity (if you are the father.) Yes, you can get a court order for a paternity test, but being the husband of the woman at birth is a better guarantee of your parental rights. Another, and frequently of equal or greater import is benefits such as health insurance which may only cover a spouse but not a live-in.

If there is a baby involved, then the couple have already violated the biggie (no sex without marriage). I fail to see how a civil marriage is a worse sin than sex outside of marriage. The civil marriage itself is not a sin. Many Christians in Europe get a civil marriage and then go to the Church for the Sacrament. The only thing wrong with a civil marriage is if a couple uses it as a pretext to have sex without the Church having provided the Sacrament of Marriage. Since the horse is already out of the stable on that one…

If you are a Catholic is is DEFINTELY A MORTAL SIN to contract marriage outside the Church! The initial sin of fornucation progressed by committing another sin on top of it in order to rectify the first sin.

Even though you faith to see it as sinful the Catholic Church most certainly can see it as sinful and has declared it so.

Ken