A Betrothal proposal
Are cohabiting Catholics always "living in sin"? Two respected family ministry researchers argue "no" and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.
Consider two unmarried couples who are living together. The first couple, 25-year-old Tom and 23-year-old Sharon, have no plans to marry. He lived with two previous girlfriends, while she lived with her ex-husband before they married, which was just before their first child was born. The second couple, 28-year-old Frank and 24-year-old Molly, are engaged to be married. They are living together for six months while engaged.
Many Catholics believe living together before marriage is "living in sin" and associate premarital cohabitation with an increased divorce rate, but recent research reports a more detailed picture of the relationship between cohabitation and marital instability.
If the first couple, Tom and Sharon, were to get married, they would be at far greater risk for marital instability than the second couple, Frank and Molly. Couples who live together with no definite plan to marry are in a completely different situation from cohabiting couples already committed to marrying one another. Those already committed to one another and planning to marry look and act like already-married couples in most ways. For committed cohabiting couples, living together is a step on the path to marriage; for couples who are not committed, cohabitation is a social arrangement inferior to marriage.
The sharp increase in premarital cohabitation is one of the most fundamental social changes in Western countries today. Between 1960 and 2004, the number of unmarried couples living together in the United States increased tenfold from less than 500,000 to more than 5 million. Cohabitation has become, even for Catholics, more and more a conventional and socially endorsed reality.
Recent focus groups of young Catholic adults on "problematic aspects of church teaching" found that they disagreed with church teaching on premarital sex and cohabitation and do not see a fundamental difference in a loving relationship before and after a wedding. Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace.
The most recent and respected marriage research identifies two kinds of cohabitors: those who are not committed to marriage, whom we name "non-nuptial cohabitors," and those already committed to marriage, perhaps even engaged, whom we name "nuptial cohabitors."
Although only non-nuptial cohabitation is linked to an increased likelihood of divorce after marriage, the fact that many Catholics believe otherwise leaves current pastoral responses to cohabiting couples both uninformed and outdated. It also raises questions about church documents based on old research and the pastoral approaches they recommend. Church documents continue to lump all cohabitors together, focus narrowly on the sexual dimension of relationships, and ignore the variety and complexity of the intentions, situations, and meanings couples give to cohabitation and its morality.
Given the current research that demonstrates that not all cohabitors are alike, we propose the re-introduction of an ancient ritual of betrothal for nuptial cohabitors, followed by intensive marriage preparation in the Catholic pastoral tradition.
Committed for life
In his 1981 encyclical Familiaris Consortio (On the Family), Pope John Paul II taught that conjugal love "aims at a deeply personal unity, the unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility." This describes the commitment not only of married spouses but also of nuptial cohabitors who have definitively committed to a loving relationship with one another but who have not yet celebrated their wedding. They come to the church to be married precisely to celebrate the gift of their love for each other and to give it a religious, sacramental permanence.
We define commitment as a freely chosen and faithful devotion to a person. Applied to relationships, including marriage, commitment as dedication is twofold: commitment to the partner and commitment to the relationship. Commitment to the partner entails those characteristics John Paul lists or implies, namely love, fidelity, loyalty, and fortitude in the trials and messiness of the relationship. Commitment to the relationship entails exclusivity, indissolubility, and fertility as fruitfulness.
Couples who share this double commitment manifest it in various ways, including a strong couple identity, a strong sense of "us" and "we," the maintenance of their partner and their marriage as a high priority, a protection of their relationship against attraction to others, a readiness to sacrifice for one another without resentment, and an investment of themselves personally in building a future together. Such double commitment is the surest path to marital intimacy.
Couples with such double commitment reveal their deepest desires, failings, and hurts to one another. They do not think about possible alternatives to their partner, and they are satisfied with their relationship in general and their sex life in particular. They are willing to give up things important to them for the sake of their relationship, and they report higher levels of happiness and stability than do couples who do not regularly sacrifice for the sake of their relationship. These happy couples have a strong sense of their future together and they are more likely to speak of that future than of their past conflicts, failures, and disappointments.
It is such commitment, we suggest, that nuptial cohabitors exhibit, albeit in seed at the beginning of their cohabitation but in full flower when they come to the church to be married. It is precisely the seedling love and commitment becoming flower that needs to be ritually celebrated and realized in the betrothal.
So there is no real
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011So there is no real difference between excommunication latae sentetae (I'm sure I spelled that wrong), then is there?
That was pretty close.
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011It's "latae sententae." (You forgot the 2nd "n" in sententae).
Actually, the results of excommunication are the same, i.e., you're out of communion with Christ's Church. The difference is basically how they got there. Those automatically excommunicated were done so without need of a letter or pronouncement by the Church.
Why???
By Missourian (not verified) on Monday, August 23, 2010Here's a question....why is the Church seemingly "obsessed" with things sexual?
Can anyone answer that question for me? Thanks!!
I've wondered this too. No
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011I've wondered this too.
No doubt, sex and sexuality are extremely important aspects of human life that the Church must put emphasis on.
Still, I've never made sense of how some people focus on things like contraception, having large families, divorce and annulments, homosexuality, etc etc etc but seem to overlook being a nice person in their day-to-day interactions with people on the street, in the marketplace, etc.
To me, the latter are as important as, if not much more important than, the former.
Reason
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011The Church is obsessed with sex because it is the strongest human drive next to food, water and survival. Humans and animals will do anything to have sex. It's Natural Law. The Church realizes this so it corrals it into "The Marital Embrace". Unfortunately, some priests who can't experience "The Marital Embrace" embrace altar boys instead.
TEF, I'm confused now.
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011Where did Jesus say we are to be "nice?" He did say we are to love our neighbor, but that's not the same thing. Love is not a feeling. It is a decision, for the good of the beloved. Say you have a small child who found a pair of scissors and thinks it would be great fun to stick the points of the scissors in an electrical socket. You're on the other side of the room and don't have time to get there before the child sticks the scissors in. Do you quietly and "nicely" say to the child, "Now, honey. That's not a good idea. Put the scissors down, please?" Or do you scream, "STOP! PUT THOSE SCISSORS DOWN! NOW!"
The latter isn't very nice, but it's more probable to stop the child in his/her tracks than speaking softly and nice, don't you think?
Contraception, divorce, homosexuality, etc., all have to do with God's (not man's) laws. They are rooted in the Natural Law. Breaking those laws have consequences, sometimes eternal consequences for those who die unrepentent of breaking them.
There's no one who is nicer, or smoother in talk than Satan when he's trying to lure us into hell. He is a first class "smooth talker!" He can be nicer than anyone you've ever met. And he's had much success in our day because people are so prideful and egotistical, that if they're not talked to "nice" they don't listen. It's like a guy who ran into an apartment building screaming, "Fire! Fire! GET OUT NOW!" And a prideful woman said, "I'm not budging because YOU'RE not being NICE! I will NOT be screamed at and ordered around. I'm staying right where I AM!" And she burned up in the fire. A lot of our fellow men and women who reject Church teaching in the areas of contraception, homosexuality, etc., are going to get burned in the fire, I fear.
re: Nice
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011Hello
Of course I agree with you that we should not sit back and be "nice" in the case of an apartment burning down, or in the case of a child in danger.
Then again, I don't think it would be very nice at all to not take action in such grave dangers.
I think you're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make... perhaps a better word I could use to describe my kind of "nice" would be "kindness"... or even "genuine love."
I've met people who are against contraception, who attend church regularly, and who are vocally "pro-life" ... who are also quite lacking in the basic idea of being appropriately polite, kind, friendly, decent, joyful and loving toward their neighbors in the temple, in the street, and in the marketplace.
I hear people talking about "Respecting Life" - but will they embrace a stranger with a smile? Will they treat someone who has a crush on them with kindness, or with contempt? Will they dump someone they were dating and just leave them behind like a dirty dishrag?
In my own life, I basically see myself as an extremely nice person who is surrounded -- for the most part -- by "not-nice" people. (Some are more "not-nice" than others.) Of course there are exceptions.... there are some great people out there. But go in most workplaces, families, churches-- get to know people and how they operate -- and you will find that the "niceness" (when it's present) is often superficial and/or selective.
"That not nice" as this little kid my mom babysat used to say
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011I'm saying, if we respect human life, if we care about people's souls, if we have the love of Christ in our hearts... then this needs to carry over in how we relate to people in our daily lives.
I'm saying, in the real world, most people are - more or less- a**holes. I hate this harsh fact. There's no reason for people to be this way. Why not be a giving, loving, decent, friendly person, rather than a snobbish, rude, unfriendly, arrogant, and/or closed-minded one ?
If all abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, heresy, etc were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow.... would this mean the world has been converted and love one another? No.
The workplaces are the worst
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011The business world tends to be dog-eat-dog. Kindness and niceness there tend to be fake.
Rather than be so concerned about prayers in the schools, I think we should call for prayers in the workplaces to begin each day.
Then again, prayer itself won't help much if hearts aren't willing to be changed.
Because in my view the world of business tends to be the world of Satan. (Again, there are exceptions to the rule.)
Suits and ties, totem poles, power struggles and power trips, greed and bottom lines... the whole capitalist landscape makes me want to vomit !
Again I say.... "That not nice !"
Heresy, by definition, has a
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011Heresy, by definition, has a temporal consequence, excommunication.


