Welcoming sinners without compromising morals

[vluvski]

You can tell by now my instruction as an EMHE was pretty thorough, huh.
“Just remember this is the Body and Blood of Christ, so don’t drop or spill it. Turn the cup between each recipient, and it doesn’t matter whether you give it on the tongue with your thumb or your finger on top.”
At least he got the Real Presence right.

Still, my point stands that it is particularly irreverent to approach a sacrament while wallowing in the sinful counterfeit counterpart of that sacrament.

 

[Ana]

fix:

If one marries in a state of mortal sin, one does not get any grace from the sacrament of marriage until one repents and goes to confession.

Repentance itself is a grace. We are playing the “what came first chicken or egg game.”

You keep saying that they cannot receive grace because they are in a state of sin. That they must first eliminate the sin from thier lives, before receiving grace. I am responding that it is grace, which convicts us to sin, leads us to repentance, to amend our lives and allow us to be in a state of grace.

fix:

I can’t speak to your personal situation, but if one gets married when when is in devoid of sanctifying grace, as those who are fornicating, one will get no grace from the sacrament of marriage until one is absolved in confession…

Can you please cite a source for this claim? It is a strong claim to make saying that “one will get NO GRACE from the Sacrament of marriage …” NO GRACE? none at all? not even a teeny tiny one? are you sure? Cause that would be pretty bad for all us sinners out here.

Also, if they are married they are no longer fornicating. They are consumating thier MARRIAGE. What a transformation!

What I am understanding is that you are saying there is no hope for fornicators to receive grace UNLESS they repent and go to Confession. I am saying that to repent and go to confession IS A GRACE IN ITSELF, so it doesn’t make sense to say they will receive no grace UNTIL they got to confession. By the time they go to confession they have already begun to receive graces (they have received the grace of repentance). And why not through the Sacrament of Marriage. It is a Sacrament. Sacraments confer grace.

fix:

My point in all this is it is no service to couples to claim they should get married while living together. For one reason such arrangments are filled more with physical passions that cloud the intellect then with authentic love. That is one reason for all the decrees of nullity and why the Church forbids trial marriages.

I think your first sentence would be more accurate if reversed. “It is no service to couples to claim they should live together while seeking marriage.”

It makes all the sense in the world to encourage marriage, as opposed to living together, especially if that is what the couple wants. Why not try to lead them from the counterfeit to the real thing?

 

[vluvski]

sacrament:
an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ in which we encounter him at key points on our journey in life
(from my confirmation book glossary)

Therefore, the sacrament is only conferred if the inward grace is already present. Without the inward grace, what does the outward sign represent? Nothing.

The sacrament is meaningless if one does not accept the grace. I think fornication is a pretty blatant rejection of that grace. I’m not sure it is proper to say that repentance is a grace, either. Repentance is not grace. A repentant heart is the fruit of the grace you accept when you acknowledge that your behavior has been sinful.

Sacraments are not magical outpourings of grace. It is true that we may feel more grace when we unite ourselves with Christ through the sacraments, but we are showered with grace constantly anyway.

A ceremony between two individuals who reject the grace God gives them to even attempt resistance to temptation is meaningless and devoid of grace. Grace cannot be poured out retroactively, so the sacrament of marriage cannot earn you any “grace points” to save up until you’re ready to use them.

I’m thankful that some people eventually decided to accept the grace that was there all along. However, I question whether their Catholic wedding ceremony bestowed any particular graces on the marriage if the ceremony was empty to begin with.

 

[Pentecost2005]

Ana:

Being in a state of grace IS A GRACE!!

There is a difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace is what leads one to repent. Genuine repentance is a condition for the restoration of sanctifying grace, which is lost through mortal sin.

 

[Pentecost2005]

Ana:

If a couple wants thier marriage blessed by God … THIS IS A GOOD THING. The Church should honor this GRACE insofar as she is able to without compromising the Truth.

Although I cannot give you EVERYTHING (Eucharist) I can give you this … God’s blessing on your marriage. The Sacrament of marriage provides grace, perhaps with this grace you can come to a deeper spiritual life. Where is the compromise?

We can only receive His blessing to the degree that we do His will. To the degree that we resist that, our capacity for receiving His blessing is diminished.

 

[Ana]

vluvski:

sacrament:
an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ in which we encounter him at key points on our journey in life
(from my confirmation book glossary)

Therefore, the sacrament is only conferred if the inward grace is already present. Without the inward grace, what does the outward sign represent? Nothing.

The sacrament is meaningless if one does not accept the grace. I think fornication is a pretty blatant rejection of that grace. I’m not sure it is proper to say that repentance is a grace, either. Repentance is not grace. A repentant heart is the fruit of the grace you accept when you acknowledge that your behavior has been sinful.

Sacraments are not magical outpourings of grace. It is true that we may feel more grace when we unite ourselves with Christ through the sacraments, but we are showered with grace constantly anyway.

A ceremony between two individuals who reject the grace God gives them to even attempt resistance to temptation is meaningless and devoid of grace. Grace cannot be poured out retroactively, so the sacrament of marriage cannot earn you any “grace points” to save up until you’re ready to use them.

I’m thankful that some people eventually decided to accept the grace that was there all along. However, I question whether their Catholic wedding ceremony bestowed any particular graces on the marriage if the ceremony was empty to begin with.

You brought up some good points, but I am tired and I have some chores to do, so I am just going to respond to your last aentence.

I don’t think sex before marriage automatically makes the ceremony empty. It certainly isn’t empty to the couple taking thier vows. To the priest and family members witnessing the marriage. Yes, I was a sinner standing on the alter. And yes, I loved God as much as my sinful heart could, and I loved my husband as much as my sinful heart could, and I loved the baby already in my womb as much as my sinful heart could. I gave all of myself (which wasn’t worth much), but it was all I had to give. And God in His mercy accepted me as I was, and loved me too much to allow me to stay that way.

My husband cried through his vows with the intensity of his love for me. Tell him it was empty!!

If the point you are trying to make is that we weren’t good enough to get married in the Church … you are right.
But God loved us and wanted to be a part of our marriage anyway. Because His love is STRONG enough to love a sinner without being compromising.

 

[Ana]

Pentecost2005:

We can only receive His blessing to the degree that we do His will. To the degree that we resist that, our capacity for receiving His blessing is diminished.

Diminished … not ELIMINATED!

 

[Pentecost2005]

Ana:

Diminished … not ELIMINATED!

Yes, we get it. But people who want God’s blessing should work a little harder at making the most of it, don’t you think? Remember what Mary said to the waiters at the wedding at Cana? “Do whatever He tells you.”

 

[HappyCatholic01]

The problem is the “tolerance” some of you preach can lead to complete relativistic tenedencies.

The whole “judge not lest ye be judged” is a crock, to a point. By definition, the ONLY people capable of judging due to their perfection were Mary and Jesus.

So WHERE do you draw the line? At what point is sin too much sin?

When is enough enough? This is a very slippery slope you are dangling on.

Minding your own business got Terry Schaivo killed, got the Jews butchered, and allowed slvery to continue far too long.

Mellowdaramtic, perhaps, but the point is the same. Turning a blind eye to sin just allows it to continue.

 

[Ana]

BillP:

Eventually, yes. As the Canon Law says he can postpone it for a time, but can’t deny it.

You are absolutely right the couple does confer. Any more hairs you want to split?

The bottom line is:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

And “properly disposed” doesn’t mean free of sin. It means they understand what it is that they are asking for.

Just thought this might be worth reading again.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

So, for example, that means we can receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin? That is a Sacrament after all.

News to me…

 

[Ana]

Pentecost2005:

Yes, we get it. But people who want God’s blessing should work a little harder at making the most of it, don’t you think? Remember what Mary said to the waiters at the wedding at Cana? “Do whatever He tells you.”

Yes, but how do we know how hard they are working? This is something completely interior. Just because they may still be in the sin, does not mean they are not making an effort. And since we don’t know where these people started from, it is impossible to measure how much of an “effort” they are making.

If one was a drug addict/stripper/prostitute turning monogomous/ engaged/desiring to get married in the Church. It would be hard to argue an effort is not being made. As well as a spiritual PROGRESS. This person may actually be progressing more rapidly in a shorter amount of time than one who is saying a daily Rosary, thinks they have “arrived,” and is too busy measuring the worthiness of others to worry about thier own sinfulness.

The point is, the things that would matter are interior and can only be judged by God. If a Priest has not misrepresented Church teaching, yet still allows the couple to marry, I am sure he has good reason to do so.

And if OP is so worried about it, why doesn’t she bring this up with the priest in question? If he is misrepresenting Church teaching, he should be lovingly admonished and perhaps reported to the Bishop. If he is not, than perhaps he can set the OP’s mind at rest by explaining his reasons.

 

[vluvski]

I meant empty of sacramental significance. I should have made myself clearer. Many civil or protestant ceremonies are full of emotion when the couples take their vows seriously, but there is something lacking that cannot be replaced simply by going through the motions. The same is true of Catholic marriages where both partners lack understanding of the sacrament.

I’m less concerned with specific cases and more concerned that it would seem cohabitation during engagement has become the norm. This should be the exception, not the rule.

What it boils down to is that a couple who is tied up emotionally due to physical involvment or financially due to cohabitation is not free to marry. In some cases, as in yours Ana, the couple would still choose to be together if the choice were being made freely.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of these couples would not freely choose this person. Even if the Church makes it clear to these couples that their actions are wrong, their emotional, financial, or parental connection make it impossible to truly discern. This results in many broken families down the road, which is ultimately what matters most.

Although it is a nice gesture toward couples that eventually come around, God’s plan for those couples will be realized whether the Church marries them or not. We owe it to the rest of the people to give them a chance to reconsider so they don’t end up divorced down the road.

 

[vluvski]

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.

The Church does not ask the couple to heal themselves. The Church offers confession, reconcilliation, and absolution. How’s that for healing?

 

[vluvski]

TarAshly:

This sounds to be extremely judgmental and superior. Please re-examine your heart. surely you would not wish only those who do things the way you are fortunate enough to be able to do, to be married in the Church? what about the rest of us? I am sorry V, but i have to tell you that you are sounding a little holier than thou in this thread. I have read other posts by you and you always seem to be a kind and charitable person. but this thread seems out of character for you. I will take it just as that. I wish you all the best in your marriage but please do not assume that the rest of us are doomed because we made a mistake in the past.

TarAshly

The man said he was living in FL and sold his house. If he was living on his own before in FL where everything is monstrously expensive, he could afford to live in NC where housing is pretty much dirt cheap. They gave the group enough insight to their situation for me to decide it was totally inappropriate. And even if their extenuating circumstance DID make it impossible to live separately, they had no business whatsoever acting like there was nothing wrong with it.

You aren’t the only one who has made mistakes. There are things in my past I truly wish I could take away. I wish more people had come to me to remind me what I already knew- what I was doing was wrong, totally inappropriate, a poor example, unhealthy, hurtful… and on and on.

I’m just trying to do others the favor no one did me.

 

[vluvski]

Ana:

And if OP is so worried about it, why doesn’t she bring this up with the priest in question? If he is misrepresenting Church teaching, he should be lovingly admonished and perhaps reported to the Bishop. If he is not, than perhaps he can set the OP’s mind at rest by explaining his reasons.

There is no particular priest in question, that is why it is such a problematic issue. These couples came from all over the diocese. Something is wrong when over half the couples at an engaged encounter are living together.

 

[stbruno]

www.omsoul.com is the website for One More Soul organization that teaches the Catholic values about NFP. One of their great resources is a talk by Dr.Janet E.Smith PhD, Contraception: Why Not. One of the tracks deals directly with the Catholic teachings on cohabitation.
And how prophetic Pope Paul VI was in 1968 when he wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae. In Sect#17, he predicted that with the widespread use of oral contraception, society would realize a general lowering of morality in society. I don’t think there is any argument in there.
Dr.Smith goes on further to site specific stats on cohabitation. 75% of those who live together before marriage, get divorced in the first 3 years of their marriage. And since 1965 prior to oral contraception, the divorce rate was 25% and by 1975 it had doubled to 75% with the only difference being, the introduction of contraception as a possible cause, studied and discerned by the Univ.of Stanford. As a result of contraception, an increase of adultery, and a parallel increase in divorce.
The church does not want to punish anyone by enacting reasons why cohabitation is wrong. Instead, I believe it wants to uplift people to live to their full potential in a union with each and with God through the beautiful sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
I recommend everyone read this wonderful download on this website.

 

[puzzleannie]

vluvski:

It
Should we send them packing, let them get a civil marriage, and risk losing them to oblivion, or roll over and make the Church look bad when a higher percentage of Catholics come back needing divorces and annulments?

I’m very bothered by this!

we meaning you and I don’t do anything except to obey Church teaching, especially in this area which is so critical to the success of the marriage, and be a witness in our own lives. Those who are pastors of these people are in charge of the care of their souls and counsel them accordingly. We do not presume to interfere with or speculate upon the dialogue between these persons and their pastor, which in any case is matter for confession, and therefore none of our business. Those charged with the duty of preparing couples for marriage consistently teach and model Catholic teaching, and explain the reason for it, and teach the consequences of failure to obey.

 

[Ana]

vluvski,

I think I’m understanding what your saying. The phrase … empty of Sacramental content and a rereading of your first post leads me to believe you are concerned whether these couples marriages, if performed are valid to begin with (because there freedom may be impaired by sin)? Thus the Church blessing these marriages is futile, because speculating that the majority of these couples will seek an annulment to verify what has been from the beginning (an invalid marriage) will make the Church look bad by the high number of annulments? Phew … hows that for a run on sentence?

Am I close?

 

[Ana]

vluvski:

The Church does not ask the couple to heal themselves. The Church offers confession, reconcilliation, and absolution. How’s that for healing?

These things are definately healing. Do you think these couples will be more or less inclined to do this if their SINCERE (perhaps sincerely wrong) desire to get married is rejected by the only Church to offer these gifts?

Also, I am not so sure the subject would be only those who cohabitate, but also those who do not cohabitate but engage in premarital sex before marriage.