Welcoming sinners without compromising morals

[vluvski]

I assume nothing. It is simply one of the requirements of the Church that the couple be living separately. The Church requires this wisely, as it creates a near occasion of sin as well as scandal since most people do assume they are having sex or physically intimate in other ways.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

I assume nothing. It is simply one of the requirements of the Church that the couple be living separately. The Church requires this wisely, as it creates a near occasion of sin as well as scandal since most people do assume they are having sex or physically intimate in other ways.

Really ??? This is the first that i have heard of this requirment…can you provide me with a link stating that…thank you.
The only thing I can find is…which only talks about sex before marriage
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 2391
*Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, "the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim."184 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.*185

 

[Brad]

vluvski:

I was particularly upset to learn that the only older couple was also living together, the woman having already been married once (I assume she, in RCIA, has a valid decree of nullity.), and the man a former Jesuit! :tsktsk:

Shouldn’t we expect more of someone who ought to know better, especially when there are children involved and an example is being set?

Yes. Adults acting like kids at the expense of kids is tiresome. We all know what Jesus said about leading children to sin.

 

[buffalo]

Ana:

I can’t believe the arrogance and pride of those that suggest to send these couples packing. I hope our good Lord judges you more mercifully than you judge others. Although, Scripture says this isn’t the case.

As if the treasure is YOURS to give.

I

Matthew 18
If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18

 

[Brad]

Ana:

By denying these fifty (assuming these numbers are accurate) the OPPORTUNITY to be a member of Christ’s Church would help … how?

I am not suggesting denying such an opportunity. I am suggesting that the teachings of the Church be presented and followed without hesitations so that all may make a proper decision about what they will to do.

By teaching ALL present that Jesus Christ and His Church is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, it will be abundantly clear to all what the Church IS. Some will change their lives. Some may leave the church. All will know where She stands.

The situation now is that MANY think they are in union with Christ and they are NOT, so that their soul is in grave danger but they know it not! They are being deceived in the worst possible way.

Ana:

And if the fifty were going to be lost anyway, how would it help by “sending packing” the couple that would have made it?

Again, not “sending packing” but making the requirement clear. They can always choose to unpack later. The 50 would not be lost anyway. Many are lost because they NEVER heard the truth properly taught. I was one of them.

Ana:

As I mentioned in a previous post. Although Christ knew only one of the ten lepers would return to thank Him, he still gave the other nine the OPPORTUNITY to do so.

Just like the Church. ALL are welcome. That doesn’t mean we need to cater the message/truth to tickle their ears.

Ana:

I am not sure how the list of rebukes Jesus gave to the Pharisees, applies to this situation. He differentiates between sinners (whom He came to save) and Pharisees (who in their own righteousness didn’t need Him). In this instance we are speaking of sinners, so the list seems a little off topic, but maybe I am reading it wrong.

God bless!

It refutes the idea that of the poster that Jesus never publically “humiliated” or “singled-out” anyone. Jesus spoke some harsh words in public on several occasions. I’m sure there were many that felt humiliated. In fact, some felt so much so, they sought to murder Him.

Jesus problem with the Pharisees is that they WERE sinners but acted as if they were perfect. It’s all about sin and confoming yourself to Jesus Christ. How is it helpful to let someone think they are united to Jesus as they reject his plan for their lives?

 

[vluvski]

Karin:

Really ??? This is the first that i have heard of this requirment…can you provide me with a link stating that…thank you.

Perhaps this is only a requirement of the parish where I am getting married. I will ask my priest about it and get back to you.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vluvski:

Perhaps this is only a requirement of the parish where I am getting married. I will ask my priest about it and get back to you.

I refer you to post #8. this is how my Pastor handles cohabitation.

 

[Brad]

Ana:

I agree that priest’s should not MISREPRESENT the teaching of the Church. But the Church should reach out to these couples wherever they can without compromising the Truth.

Absolutely.

Ana:

Obviously a couple living in sin should not receive the Eucharist, and it should not be part of the wedding ceremony.

Not only shouldn’t they receive the Eucharist, they should not enter into the holy sacrament of marriage which is a symbol of Christ’s wedding with the Church, including the marriage supper of the lamb. Confession first.

Ana:

But the concept of of telling someone to “stop sinning” than come back to Church, is equivalent to telling someone to heal themselves before they go to the doctor.

No. It is giving them the healing advice of the doctor that they may or may not have previously received.

Ana:

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I need the graces and Sacraments of the Church to overcome sin.

We all do. Isn’t confession wonderful? How do you know how to make a good confession if you don’t know what is a sin?

 

[buffalo]

vluvski:

Perhaps this is only a requirement of the parish where I am getting married. I will ask my priest about it and get back to you.

No, it it fairly typical.

Canon Law

ß2 So that the sacrament of marriage may be fruitfully received, spouses are earnestly recommended that they approach the sacraments of penance and the blessed Eucharist.

Can. 1077 ß1 The local Ordinary can in a specific case forbid a marriage of his own subjects, wherever they are residing, or of any person actually present in his territory; he can do this only for a time, for a grave reason and while that reason persists.

 

[Brad]

Karin:

Not all Catholic couples that live together before marriage are having sex. They could be in two different beds and rooms etc. Why do people always assume that they are living in sin?

And the cow jumped over the moon.

 

[Ana]

HappyCatholic01:

I didn’t advocate to send them packing.

I DO advocate telling the truth of God.

Why is that a problem? If the Church isn’t supposed to do that, they might as well close their doors and shut down.

I agree!! There must have been a misunderstanding.

 

[Brad]

vluvski:

Perhaps this is only a requirement of the parish where I am getting married. I will ask my priest about it and get back to you.

While you are there, ask him if all people that play with fire get burned.

 

[vluvski]

Part of my dilemma is this:

If I was a man and a priest, I could not in good conscience officiate a wedding ceremony that I believed might have grounds for a future annullment. I also could not in good conscience feign absolution during Confession knowing the couple was not repentant for creating scandal by living together prior to marriage.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

And the cow jumped over the moon.

I personally know of couiples who cohabitated prior to marriage. Prior to their marriage, after the talk I referred to in post #8, they agreed to live in separate bedrooms and live as brother and sister. I have no doubt they fulfilled this promise.

As a person who got married civilly as my wife had not yet rec’d her annulment, after she rec’d her annullment, we lived this way until our marriage was blessed.

The Church has high expectations of its members. We should have equally high expectations. With God’s grace and their commitment of their God-given will, it is not only possible but probable.

 

[buffalo]

vluvski:

Part of my dilemma is this:

If I was a man and a priest, I could not in good conscience officiate a wedding ceremony that I believed might have grounds for a future annullment. I also could not in good conscience feign absolution during Confession knowing the couple was not repentant for creating scandal by living together prior to marriage.

Basically a couple would be asking a priest to violate his vows?

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

Can. 1077 ß1 The local Ordinary can in a specific case forbid a marriage of his own subjects, wherever they are residing, or of any person actually present in his territory; he can do this only for a time, for a grave reason and while that reason persists.

It is actually against Canon Law to deny the Layity access to the Sacraments.

Priests can advise, counsul, suggest and postpone but if a Catholic man and a Catholic woman appear before them asking for the Sacrament of Matrimony , they are entitled to it regardless of their state of sinfulness.

Oh yeah, its also against Canon law to charge a fee for the Sacraments, its called Simony

 

[vluvski]

buffalo:

Basically a couple would be asking a priest to violate his vows?

Yes, basically.

My friend was “forced” to live with her fiance because her roommate, whose name was first on the lease, basically made up a story to get her evicted. They lived chastely as brother and sister in separate bedrooms until they were married, and were very vocal about the situation being less than ideal. They had plenty of people telling them it was wrong, kept the living situation secret from those whom it did not concern, and confronted the issue head-on with their priest. This IMO is a gray area that needs a lot of discernment on the part of priest. If the couple’s behavior suggests they are not being truthful about their intimacy, well… let’s just say I don’t envy his decision.

The bigger issue is that couples are unashamed and even brag about their living situation as many of the couples on the retreat did. I think this demonstrates an enormous lack of respect for the teachings of the Church, and if it was my place, I would question their readiness for the sacrament of marriage.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

Perhaps this is only a requirement of the parish where I am getting married. I will ask my priest about it and get back to you.

THank you

 

[vluvski]

BillP:

It is actually against Canon Law to deny the Layity access to the Sacraments.

Priests can advise, counsul, suggest and postpone but if a Catholic man and a Catholic woman appear before them asking for the Sacrament of Matrimony , they are entitled to it regardless of their state of sinfulness.

Oh yeah, its also against Canon law to charge a fee for the Sacraments, its called Simony

So if a priest has reason to believe the couple is not entering the marriage freely (perhaps because they are inappropriately emotionally connected because of physical intimacy), he is still required to marry them?
Doesn’t the couple confer the sacrament on one another anyway?
And who is talking about charging a fee for the sacraments? That is an entirely different issue. If you want to talk about it, please start a new thread.

 

[buffalo]

BillP:

It is actually against Canon Law to deny the Layity access to the Sacraments.

Priests can advise, counsul, suggest and postpone but if a Catholic man and a Catholic woman appear before them asking for the Sacrament of Matrimony , they are entitled to it regardless of their state of sinfulness.

Oh yeah, its also against Canon law to charge a fee for the Sacraments, its called Simony

A public manifest sinner (such as a pro-death politician) can be denied Holy Communion.