Welcoming sinners without compromising morals

[Ana]

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…

What is that “something” that is lacking? And if the couple takes their vows seriously, how is that going through the motions?

vluvski:

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…

Perhaps them being married in the Church IS God’s plan, whether others that would have it otherwise, realize it or not. His ways are not our ways.

I believe “free to marry” means not against the will of the person. Not being forced or under coercion, not already married to someone else. I am not sure the term encompasses financial or physical involvement.

How can the Church differentiate between those couples that would still choose to be together if not cohabitating, and those that are not (to use your terminology) … “choosing freely.”

vluvski:

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.

It is more than a “nice gesture”! It is bringing God into their marriage! For some couples, it is salvation! Perhaps them being married in the Church IS God’s plan, whether others that would have it otherwise, realize it or not. His ways are not our ways.

 

[fix]

Ana:

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.

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.

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?

Please see this as one point of proof. If you desire more I will post more:

  **Does a couple who receive the sacrament of matrimony receive the full blessing and benefits of the sacrament when they have been cohabiting before they were married?**

To receive the sacrament of matrimony worthily a person must be in the state of grace, that is, free from unforgiven mortal sins. Fornication is a very serious sin. One who would receive matrimony with such an unforgiven grievous sin on his or her soul would truly be married, but would not receive any grace at all, but instead would incur a further heinous mortal sin of sacrilege. Confession, contrition, repentance, and penance, of course, can remove serious sins from our souls. It is hopped that people who commit sins of fornications before their marriage would approach confession and receive absolution before bestowing or receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Of course, it should be pointed out that many young Catholic engage couples lead lives of chastity and purity, reserving sexual activity for marriage, as God wills and when it is sacred and holy in God’s eyes.

Reprinted from May 2, 1997
dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/marriages/#5

 

[Ana]

fix:

Please see this as one point of proof. If you desire more I will post more:

Thank you fix! Very enlightening.

 

[fix]

Ana:

Thank you fix! Very enlightening.

You are very welcome. Your posts have helped me learn more and refine my limited understanding of grace. Thank you.

 

[TarAshly]

My wedding was beautiful and full of God’s grace. I felt God speak to me in a way i had never felt before. I felt him leading me down the aisle to my husband. when we took each others hands i felt God touch our hands. He was there in every aspect of the wedding. How dare you call peoples weddings empty?! who are you to judge mine or anyone else in that situation and what their wedding was like? When you get over being the Bride and start being the wife and realize that everything isnt always roses and wine and every relationship has its problems, maybe then you will worry more about your own marriage instead of others!

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.

 

[vluvski]

I’m concerned about other people because I care about other people in a way most people refuse to. I don’t compromise the truth just to give someone a warm fuzzy feeling.

Ana, that run-on sentence is only part of why I am concerned with the startling percentage of couples living together before marriage. To take it one step further, an invalid marriage will by its very nature be more prone to marital strife. Your understanding of “free to marry” is out of sync with the Church’s definition of “free to marry.”

Marriages get the benefit of the doubt, so for a couple that made the right decision despite impairments to their ability to judge the situation, the validity would never be questioned.

My concern is for the 75% of cohabiting couples who will get divorced within the first 3 years of marriage. Marriage is not a ticket to guilt-free sex, not a special pass to allow the couple to live together, not a contract, not a mutually agreeable financial arrangement; it’s a sacrament and a life-long commitment!

Marriage is hard, and divorce is ugly. If a couple is unwilling to even try to find another living arrangement or worse, won’t even make an effort to be chaste throughout their engagement, it’s a pretty far stretch to say they will be willing to put in the hard work to make their marriage healthy and strong. Don’t get me wrong, some do, but one need only look at the current divorce rates to see that most people do not take marriage seriously.

 

[TarAshly]

you dont have a CLUE what you are talking about until you are married. and even then you still can not judge the marriage of others. when my husband and I have problems, its the love we have for each other and the commitment we have to our marriage and faith that keeps us working on it. We have put a heck of a lot of work into our marriage. you are no better than me sister just because you arent cohabitating. why dont you take these sentiments to your priest if your so concerned. You are not even married yet and yet you feel you have so much room to make all these blatant judgements on other couples. i dont understand it at all.

vluvski:

I’m concerned about other people because I care about other people in a way most people refuse to. I don’t compromise the truth just to give someone a warm fuzzy feeling.

Ana, that run-on sentence is only part of why I am concerned with the startling percentage of couples living together before marriage. To take it one step further, an invalid marriage will by its very nature be more prone to marital strife. Your understanding of “free to marry” is out of sync with the Church’s definition of “free to marry.”

Marriages get the benefit of the doubt, so for a couple that made the right decision despite impairments to their ability to judge the situation, the validity would never be questioned.

My concern is for the 75% of cohabiting couples who will get divorced within the first 3 years of marriage. Marriage is not a ticket to guilt-free sex, not a special pass to allow the couple to live together, not a contract, not a mutually agreeable financial arrangement; it’s a sacrament and a life-long commitment!

Marriage is hard, and divorce is ugly. If a couple is unwilling to even try to find another living arrangement or worse, won’t even make an effort to be chaste throughout their engagement, it’s a pretty far stretch to say they will be willing to put in the hard work to make their marriage healthy and strong. Don’t get me wrong, some do, but one need only look at the current divorce rates to see that most people do not take marriage seriously.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

I’m concerned about other people because I care about other people in a way most people refuse to. I don’t compromise the truth just to give someone a warm fuzzy feeling…

That is honestly nice to hear…thank you!

vluvski:

Your understanding of “free to marry” is out of sync with the Church’s definition of “free to marry.” …

ana:

believe “free to marry” means not against the will of the person. Not being forced or under coercion, not already married to someone else. I am not sure the term encompasses financial or physical involvement…

Actually I think that ana’s understanding of “free to marry” as per CCC is correct.
CCC[1625](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1625.htm’)* The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means: *
- not being under constraint; *
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
CCC***1627 *The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”*129
**CCC[162](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1628.htm’)8 *The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid. ***
CCC1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

 

[TarAshly]

and by the way, the whole title of your thread rubs me the wrong way… “welcoming sinners”… are you without sin all together? are you not a sinner yourself???

 

[vluvski]

Ana:

What is that “something” that is lacking? And if the couple takes their vows seriously, how is that going through the motions?

Fix’s quote explains the something that is lacking. I’d call it the sacramental nature of the sacrament. It’s somewhat of an idiosyncracy because on one hand, the sacrament remains a sacrament, but on the other hand it is void of the grace it is supposed to signify.

It’s kind of like the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. (You’re probably all rolling your eyes wondering who the heck I am to start talking about spirit of the law when I’m in favor of enforcing a particular rule more strictly.) You can perform the ceremony exactly as prescribed down to the last T, but it is only “going through the motions” if the grace of the sacrament is missing regardless of whether the couple takes their vows seriously or not. I admit, the sentence was not worded very well.

Tar, you assume far too much about my character as it relates to this issue. I’m not a conceited bridezilla who has finished bringing hell down upon my family, my future in-laws, and my wedding party and is now looking for everything wrong with everyone else’s engagement and marriage. Marriage is a bond that cannot be broken, yet these couples are being set up for failure when rules are indiscriminately bent and broken. When 75% of couples are cohabiting through engagement, I think that is reason to believe there is a problem with how the Church is treating this important time of preparation. We have couples denied marriage at a church because they haven’t been official members or because they have too many bridesmaids. The church has rules about where to put flowers and whether the flowers are real and who is and isn’t allowed to play the organ… All these rules about the day, but when it comes to the sacrament itself, it seems like they just roll over.

There is no need to get defensive if you started your marriage in a less-than-ideal situation. Some of you have admitted you wish you hadn’t started off that way. Don’t we owe it to couples preparing for marriage to help them find a way to start of right? Perhaps if the Church was setting a better precedent, more couples would find a way to make things work instead of doing the easy thing and living together and/or falling into sexual sin.

 

[vluvski]

TarAshly:

and by the way, the whole title of your thread rubs me the wrong way… “welcoming sinners”… are you without sin all together? are you not a sinner yourself???

nope, never sinned in my life. (That’s God smiting me for lying.)

On the contrary, I know all too well how much it hurts to persist in sin and later wonder why no one was willing to step forward and correct me.

 

[vluvski]

That is honestly nice to hear…thank you!

Actually I think that ana’s understanding of “free to marry” as per CCC is correct.
CCC[1625](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1625.htm’)* The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means: *
- not being under constraint; *
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
CCC***1627 *The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”*129
CCC[162](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1628.htm’)8 *The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid. *
CCC1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

When a marriage is examined by the tribunal, premarital sex and pregnancy are both considered impediments of the couples ability to marry freely.

 

[buffalo]

vluvski:

There is no need to get defensive if you started your marriage in a less-than-ideal situation. Some of you have admitted you wish you hadn’t started off that way. Don’t we owe it to couples preparing for marriage to help them find a way to start of right? Perhaps if the Church was setting a better precedent, more couples would find a way to make things work instead of doing the easy thing and living together and/or falling into sexual sin.

Right on! The Church being a hospital for sinners wants to move one toward grace no matter where one has been if one is open and repentant.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

When a marriage is examined by the tribunal, premarital sex and pregnancy are both considered impediments of the couples ability to marry freely.

Not always true…my first marriag that was presented to the Tribunal for an annulment had both premarital sex and pregnancy involved…but the annulment was not granted on these grounds…so I guess the Tribunal did not see these as impediments in our case.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

When a marriage is examined by the tribunal, premarital sex and pregnancy are both considered impediments of the couples ability to marry freely.

** And once again* living together is not premarital sex*…not all couples living together are sleeping /having sex together.**

 

[vluvski]

Karin:

Not always true…my first marriag that was presented to the Tribunal for an annulment had both premarital sex and pregnancy involved…but the annulment was not granted on these grounds…so I guess the Tribunal did not see these as impediments in our case.

Each case is different. Let me change that to can be considered impediments.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

Each case is different. Let me change that to can be considered impediments.

 

[vluvski]

** And once again* living together is not premarital sex***…not all couples living together are sleeping /having sex together.

Living together before marriage is still terrible for the relationship, and it would be preposterous to claim the problems do not feed eachother.

 

[Karin]

vluvski:

Living together before marriage is still terrible for the relationship, and it would be preposterous to claim the problems do not feed eachother.

It may be terrible but it is not against the Church’s teaching (to live together with out sex)…unless you have found out differently.

 

[Ana]

vluvski:

I’m concerned about other people because I care about other people in a way most people refuse to. I don’t compromise the truth just to give someone a warm fuzzy feeling…

In my case we were cohabitating, the Truth was NEVER compromised, and we were STILL allowed to marry in the Church. Because of our spiritual state, we were not able to participate FULLY. But the Church in her motherly LOVE and WISDOM gave us what she was able, without compromising. Our marriage was indeed blessed by God, whether you or anyone else likes the fact.

vluvski:

Ana, that run-on sentence is only part of why I am concerned with the startling percentage of couples living together before marriage. To take it one step further, an invalid marriage will by its very nature be more prone to marital strife. Your understanding of “free to marry” is out of sync with the Church’s definition of “free to marry.”…

Actually it’s not. Karin was kind enouth to quote the CCC.
You are assuming the marriage was invalid to begin with. That it’s validity is only proved by the couple not divorcing. This is not true, not all divorces merit annulment, and not all cohabitating couples marriages are invalid based on that fact alone.

Fix’s post which points out the sacrilage involved even points out the fact that the marriage is VALID.

vluvski:

Marriages get the benefit of the doubt, so for a couple that made the right decision despite impairments to their ability to judge the situation, the validity would never be questioned…

So you are saying though the marriage was never valid to begin with, the couple who makes the right decisions (despite thier impaired judgement) and somehow gets it right, will never need to know the unfortunate news that their marriage in fact never existed in the eyes of God?

vluvski:

My concern is for the 75% of cohabiting couples who will get divorced within the first 3 years of marriage. Marriage is not a ticket to guilt-free sex, not a special pass to allow the couple to live together, not a contract, not a mutually agreeable financial arrangement; it’s a sacrament and a life-long commitment! .

How do you know that any of those reasons are the reasons the couple chose to marry eachother? You are assuming and judging motives (which you have no possible way of knowing). It is possible that they may not have everything the the right way, but do have the right REASONS for getting married.

vluvski:

Marriage is hard, and divorce is ugly. If a couple is unwilling to even try to find another living arrangement or worse, won’t even make an effort to be chaste throughout their engagement, it’s a pretty far stretch to say they will be willing to put in the hard work to make their marriage healthy and strong. Don’t get me wrong, some do, but one need only look at the current divorce rates to see that most people do not take marriage seriously.

You cannot be sure of the interior effort made by the couple. It is not their responsibility to share with you their spiritual life. So, unless they SAY, I reject the Church’s teaching on cohabitation and I do not care at all what she say’s, I am not even trying or considering being chaste, I am going to do what I want … You should assume they are trying (as Catholics we are called to do this), and whether their efforts bear fruit or when they do, REALLY is outside of your domain. Praying and fasting for them, offering up sacrifices would be the most beneficial thing to do, not getting pissy that the Church is marrying them … shaking your head and thinking they are not good enough, as if you are somehow being offended by their presence, and think you know better than the Church, who does allow them to marry.