Cohabiting Couples To Be Refused The Eucharist?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Catholic Fox' date='29 May 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1275173028' post='2120357']
That's no good.
[/quote]
Life is often a compromise. We weighed our options, we made our decision, and lived with the consequences. It helped that our priest understood why we had chosen to marry legally first.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='29 May 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1275175007' post='2120370']
Life is often a compromise. We weighed our options, we made our decision, and lived with the consequences. It helped that our priest understood why we had chosen to marry legally first.
[/quote]

Wow, both a MIL with mental health issues (to understate the case) and then having to deal with Canadian immigration. I had a co-worker from Denmark, who married an American, and the loops they had to jump through to prove that they married for love, not to let her live in the U.S. were also very invasive of their privacy. She even brought in their letters to each other to show that they had been dating for a couple of years before they got married.

You must have really loved this guy. LOL (That's been obvious in all your posts.)

[CatherineM]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='29 May 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1275183737' post='2120452']
Wow, both a MIL with mental health issues (to understate the case) and then having to deal with Canadian immigration. I had a co-worker from Denmark, who married an American, and the loops they had to jump through to prove that they married for love, not to let her live in the U.S. were also very invasive of their privacy. She even brought in their letters to each other to show that they had been dating for a couple of years before they got married.

You must have really loved this guy. LOL (That's been obvious in all your posts.)
[/quote]
I'm absolutely nuts about him. We had to copy 400 pages worth of emails and letters to send in with my application for residency. I truly hope no one actually read them. I still have nightmares about them ending up on the internet or something.

[southern california guy]

My dad was complaining about a Eucharistic server -- who was living with his girlfriend. I'll have to ask him more details.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='27 May 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1275000189' post='2119355']
Malta's hardcore. I wish we could all do that. I wonder if it is easier there because it's an island and everyone kind of knows each other. In a place like Edmonton where everyone is from somewhere else, it can be harder to know without giving every new parishioner the third degree.
[/quote]

Forgive me, forgive me, forgive me ... but where I come from, some of our bishops have problems with denying the eucharist to Catholics in a state of [b]public[/b] mortal sin, let alone "private" sin. *cough* Nancy Pelosi *cough*

Edited May 30, 2010 by mommas_boy

[MithLuin]

Well, this is a pastoral letter. The bishops are just clarifying for parishioners that they shouldn't be receiving if they are living together without being married, but being separated is okay. No one is (I don't think, anyway) denying communion to those who come forward. It's just a reminder not to present yourself for communion if you are not in a state to receive it.

Technically, a couple could have made private vows to one another which would count as the consent necessary for marriage, even if their 'marriage' would not then be recognized by the Church nor the civil authorities. I would not go so far as to say it isn't recognized by God, though.....

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='29 May 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1275192212' post='2120550']
Well, this is a pastoral letter. The bishops are just clarifying for parishioners that they shouldn't be receiving if they are living together without being married, but being separated is okay. No one is (I don't think, anyway) denying communion to those who come forward. It's just a reminder not to present yourself for communion if you are not in a state to receive it.

Technically, a couple could have made private vows to one another which would count as the consent necessary for marriage, even if their 'marriage' would not then be recognized by the Church nor the civil authorities. I would not go so far as to say it isn't recognized by God, though.....
[/quote]

While that is possible -- that they made private "vows" -- it isn't the way you would bet. I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you're trying to give a degree of legitimacy to living together out of wedlock.

What would the downside of refusing communion be? Would it embarrass the couple? Would they stop going to Mass -- rather than getting married? (Maybe they're not married because he doesn't want to marry her.) Or, would it pressure the guy to marry the woman? Would that be bad?

I know that many of the Mexican Catholics here in California aren't married, but you never hear anything critical at one of the spanish Masses. However when I went to Mass, down in Mexico, there was a small wedding being held at the church as part of the Mass. The priest explained that it was just a small wedding -- because the couple was already legally married. And he explained that they hadn't gotten a Catholic marriage originally because they couldn't afford. And he argued that they had done the right thing by getting legally married -- and making a commitment -- rather than just living together.

Edited May 30, 2010 by southern california guy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='30 May 2010 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1275235236' post='2120683']
While that is possible -- that they made private "vows" -- it isn't the way you would bet. I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you're trying to give a degree of legitimacy to living together out of wedlock.

What would the downside of refusing communion be? Would it embarrass the couple? Would they stop going to Mass -- rather than getting married? (Maybe they're not married because he doesn't want to marry her.) Or, would it pressure the guy to marry the woman? Would that be bad?

I know that many of the Mexican Catholics here in California aren't married, but you never hear anything critical at one of the spanish Masses. However when I went to Mass, down in Mexico, there was a small wedding being held at the church as part of the Mass. The priest explained that it was just a small wedding -- because the couple was already legally married. And he explained that they hadn't gotten a Catholic marriage originally because they couldn't afford. And he argued that they had done the right thing by getting legally married -- and making a commitment -- rather than just living together.
[/quote]

Nice. Money taking precedence over morality. Always good to have solid pastors to preach the faith. "Sheep's clothing! Get your sheep's clothing right here!"

~Sternhauser

[Semper Catholic]

With me and my girlfriend it's just easier. She spends all her time over here anyway, might as well save the gas for the 30 minute drive each way. And yes I would marry her if she let me but she refuses

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='30 May 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1275236114' post='2120692']
With me and my girlfriend it's just easier. She spends all her time over here anyway, might as well save the gas for the 30 minute drive each way. And yes I would marry her if she let me but she refuses
[/quote]

So if you were refused communion would it make you not want to continue to go to mass? Do you think that she would stop going to mass?

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='30 May 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1275236838' post='2120696']
So if you were refused communion would it make you not want to continue to go to mass? Do you think that she would stop going to mass?
[/quote]

Possibly. To be honest I usually don't go up anyway, I've usually been too salty between then and my last confession.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 May 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1275235490' post='2120686']
Nice. Money taking precedence over morality. Always good to have solid pastors to preach the faith. "Sheep's clothing! Get your sheep's clothing right here!"

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

What is the official Catholic position concerning Catholics who get legal marriages before a Catholic one? Or how about Catholics who only have a legal marriage?

They're not the same as a couple who cohabitates because they have made an official legal commitment to one another. Does the Catholic church view them the same?



I personally liked that priests position. But I suppose I'm not a very good Catholic. I think that the commitment is the important thing -- and it's only strengthened when the couple publicly swears to god that they'll stay together. My guess is that couple won't be getting a divorce and an annulment in the future. So their kids will grow up in a secure intact family.

Edited May 30, 2010 by southern california guy

[Norseman82]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='30 May 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1275243163' post='2120726']
What is the official Catholic position concerning Catholics who get legal marriages before a Catholic one? [/quote]

This is a common issue when dealing with people from Latin American countries, many (if not most) of which do not recognize religious ceremonies and so have legal requirements to have a civil marriage ceremony before the religious ceremony. This stems from anti-clericalism in Latin America, which was dominant for a period of time in the last century in many (if not most) Latin American countries.

I heard a speaker who married someone in a South American country mention that they had the civil ceremony, then lived as "brother and sister" until the Catholic ceremony.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='31 May 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1275326966' post='2121238']
This is a common issue when dealing with people from Latin American countries, many (if not most) of which do not recognize religious ceremonies and so have legal requirements to have a civil marriage ceremony before the religious ceremony. This stems from anti-clericalism in Latin America, which was dominant for a period of time in the last century in many (if not most) Latin American countries.

I heard a speaker who married someone in a South American country mention that they had the civil ceremony, then lived as "brother and sister" until the Catholic ceremony.
[/quote]

The requirement for a civil marriage also applies in a number of European countries, and, as I understand it, many couples (if they can) arrange to have both the civil and the church marriages performed on the same day.

Edited May 31, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[MithLuin]

The money issue is partly the fault of the church, too. There is a fee, and for those living in abject poverty, paying for a wedding isn't really an option. So they live together, without state or church sanction, until the guy leaves. The women raise the kids. Very, very dysfunctional, but not uncommon in some Latin American countries, unfortunately.

The couples know their living situation is not something the Church approves of, so they do not come forward for communion. It should probably be a pastoral priority of the Church to encourage marriage in some way to change that status quo. Maybe there already charities that provide for wedding fees (state and church). I don't know.

[b]SCG[/b], I'm not making any assumptions about anything. In the Middle Ages, the Church recognized that consent and the marital embrace was all that was required for a valid marriage, and thus a 'secret' or private marriage would be binding (if anyone ever found out about it). This features in the plot of [i]Braveheart[/i], of course. I think that's technically still true, even though the Church wouldn't recognize such a private arrangement, I wouldn't think. Remember that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony...are the couple themselves. The priest doesn't marry the couple, though he does witness and bless the union. Sure, I would assume that most people who are living together have made no such private wedding vows - but how would I know? Isn't that the whole point of being private/secret? Basically, we assume that people who are romantically involved and share an address but not a last name or wedding album are living in sin. Most of the time, that's probably accurate. But it is not always the case; God knows what's going on, and most of the time, we can leave that up to Him. I don't make a habit of asking people for details of what happens in their bedrooms.

Please understand that I am hardly suggesting that the Church should recognize this type of union as the sacrament of matrimony. Disney's [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvenEcIHw8E&feature=related]pirate wedding[/url] and [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCi3Zsb4yCY&feature=related]beach scene[/url] are not exactly what I would call a sacramental union. But it is a marriage, presumably in God's eyes (or would be, if this weren't a movie ), and I was just venturing to put that possibility out there without saying it was likely or even something we should worry about.


Couples who are living together without benefit of marriage should not present themselves for reception of communion. That is what the Church teaches. In Latin America, that teaching is generally recognized and honored. In the US, that is largely ignored in many places (divorce and remarriage outside the church is, of course, living together). The bishops of Malta seem to be trying to educate their flock about this issue in light of some recent and public confusion or misstatements on a TV show.

The act of denying communion to someone who comes forward when they really shouldn't is another matter. Whether or not communion should be denied to someone whom 'everyone knows' is living in sin, I don't think the bishops of Malta have said they will do so. Their letter focused on the actions of the parishioners, not the ministers of holy communion.

Edited June 1, 2010 by MithLuin

[tinytherese]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='31 May 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1275360590' post='2121837']

[b]SCG[/b], I'm not making any assumptions about anything. In the Middle Ages, the Church recognized that consent and the marital embrace was all that was required for a valid marriage, and thus a 'secret' or private marriage would be binding (if anyone ever found out about it). This features in the plot of [i]Braveheart[/i], of course. I think that's technically still true, even though the Church wouldn't recognize such a private arrangement, I wouldn't think. Remember that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony...are the couple themselves. The priest doesn't marry the couple, though he does witness and bless the union.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'm not totally sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about a natural marriage between two Catholics being recognized as lawfully married, but not sacramentally yet because of circumstances? I might be wrong, but I thought that the Church wouldn't recognize that as anything more than a piece of paper. I know that the couples are the ones who minister the sacrament, contrary to popular belief, but I thought that only in a situation where a priest or deacon were unavailable and too far away to get to the couple could the man and woman just do it themselves with witnesses (or in some cases like say if they were the only ones together stranded on a desert island so there wouldn't be any witnesses.)

[MithLuin]

Yes, that's correct [b]TT[/b] - the modern Church would not recognize that as a sacrament. There was a reason I had to go back to the medieval Church for an example . Basically, the Church acknowledges that if you do have a man and woman on a deserted island (no priests, no witnesses), they could marry themselves to one another. Sorta like how, in an emergency, you or I could baptize someone.

But that doesn't mean that is the way it should be done, and if two Catholics went the 'private' route without seeking the blessing of the Church, that doesn't work out so well.

Anyway, I'm hardly defending the widespread practice of living together. Most people who do so certainly do not confuse their decision with marriage. [b]SC[/b] above refers to his girlfriend, not a common law wife.

What sparked this conversation in Malta was a discussion on the civil side to legitimize living together as a legally recognized form of marriage. For instance....

[quote]Suggestions listed for new cohabitation law
Posted on March 29th, 2010

Because of poor feedback in the first consultation phase for proposals to grant certain rights to cohabiting couples, the Social Affairs Permanent Committee is once again asking the public to submit further proposals.

These submissions received so far have been summarised to 7 separate proposals, and the committee is now asking the public to submit new proposals or amend the existing ones by 31st May 2010.

The proposals include:

• The setting up of a registry office for civil unions for cohabiting couples
• Cohabitating couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as married couples
• Children born to a cohabiting couple should receive inheritance rights
• The right to inheritance.
• Pensions should be paid to bereaved partners in civil unions.
• The Family Court should be empowered to regulate separated couples cohabiting with others, so that the separation of assets is carried out in a fair manner.
• An authority needs to be set up so as to decide on issues of custody of children, maintenance payments and access should a civil union break down.

[url=http://www.maltamediaonline.com/?p=22801](source)[/url][/quote]

As you can see, with that kind of conversation going on in the government in Malta, it is clear why the Church would need to speak up as to what is or is not acceptable for Catholics. 98% of the people of Malta are Catholic, and Catholicism is the official state religion according to their constitution (there is freedom of religion as well). Most native Maltese citizens are Catholic; the other 2% of the population is mostly immigrants - British retirees, for instance. There is one synagogue and one mosque...in the entire country.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='31 May 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1275360590' post='2121837']
[b]SCG[/b], I'm not making any assumptions about anything. In the Middle Ages, the Church recognized that consent and the marital embrace was all that was required for a valid marriage, and thus a 'secret' or private marriage would be binding (if anyone ever found out about it). This features in the plot of [i]Braveheart[/i], of course. I think that's technically still true, even though the Church wouldn't recognize such a private arrangement, I wouldn't think. Remember that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony...are the couple themselves. The priest doesn't marry the couple, though he does witness and bless the union. Sure, I would assume that most people who are living together have made no such private wedding vows - but how would I know? Isn't that the whole point of being private/secret? Basically, we assume that people who are romantically involved and share an address but not a last name or wedding album are living in sin. Most of the time, that's probably accurate. But it is not always the case; God knows what's going on, and most of the time, we can leave that up to Him. I don't make a habit of asking people for details of what happens in their bedrooms.
[/quote]

Clandestine marriages (where were contracted by the secret exchange of marriage vows) were valid (and, of course, sacramental, since every valid marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament) up to the time of the Council of Trent, when [i]Tametsi[/i] declared that all future clandestine marriages would be invalid by reason of ecclesiastical impediment.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Resurrexi