|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 14, 2021 4:26:33 GMT
This is why I would like to see a longer, more involved --- I'll even say "invasive" --- preparation for marriage, and I'd even make psychological testing and at least one session with a licensed counselor or social worker a requirement for marriage, to ferret out things that could be problems down the road. I mean, they require such evaluations for priests, don't they? (And with good reason.) But to return to a point I made earlier, if you placed more and more restrictions on who can marry, "who shouldn't marry just yet", and who shouldn't marry at all, you'd find a few holy souls who would say "we're so happy the Church is forcing us to look intently at this vocation, and making sure we're not making a mistake", but you would have far more who would say "this is b******t, we have to jump through enough hoops as it is, we'll just find some other way to get married, no other church requires this, and there's always the justice of the peace". There are no easy answers, and sadly, too many are not stopping and asking objectively, "should we do this, are we called to this vocation with one another, will it help us to save our souls and grow closer to God?", but rather simply "we love each other and want to be together". Sometimes we want things --- and people --- we should not have.
I know a few counselors and social workers, and from my experience, (not from seeing them myself, but they are either clients or known to me personally) they are as, or more messed up than the rest of society. What good could possibly come from meeting with folks who can't manage their own lives? It would be much more beneficial for prospective marriage partners to meet with people who have long term stable marriages, for honest discussions about what marriage is all about. I will propose this question. If the Church can't get it right as to whether or not a man should be a priest after years in the seminary and all the interactions he has, how in the world does anyone think that they can get who should and shouldn't get married right?
Points well made. I only mentioned counselors (i.e., social work and mental health professionals) because they are trained and licensed to do this kind of thing, not necessarily that they have perfect lives themselves. I would like to see couples face the "hard cases" before they get married, and to be forced to face the possibility of "if this happened, would you still want to be with this person?". People generally tend to get hurt and offended, if anyone suggests that they or their lives might be anything short of perfect. It's hard for me to stand back and understand this point of view, because I don't take this kind of offense. An example would be my father's estate. I get the "vibe" from our attorney --- I am the personal representative --- that he wants to make absolutely sure I am honest, and that I don't exploit my 90-year-old mother. He would be a pretty poor attorney if he weren't looking out for her like that! I've done business with him for years, but he really doesn't "know" me, and I could embezzle funds if I wanted to --- but I wouldn't. I'd be in for a long prison sentence, but so would anyone else, and it does happen. People shaft their families every day of the world. I know I wouldn't, but I have no expectation whatsoever that anyone is going to look at me, or at anyone else, and just give them blind, mindless, total trust and loyalty. That's why we have laws --- to keep people honest. We are all sinners.
And so it is with marriage. People change. Spouses let themselves go. The world of work probably provides more temptations for married people, than any other venue. I've been tempted myself. People get tired of one another. Over time, anyone is going to do things to disappoint the other spouse. And it is a two-way street. I'd really like to see couples contemplating marriage, to have to sit down with someone, to take the chance they are going to be offended --- "how dare you!" --- and to be brought face-to-face with the fact that they are not perfect, their marriage will not be perfect, and there may be tough times ahead. If once in a great while a couple decides, after such examination, not to get married, well, in all likelihood, that's one less annulment the Church will have to process a few years down the road. As I always say, "better quality control on the front end".
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 14, 2021 16:03:51 GMT
I know that there are now marriage preparation courses. However, I think it would take too many sessions to dig deep enough into a person's psyche to know whether they were fit for marriage and whether they could enter a lasting marriage. Things need to be put into concept and a big part of the problem is society. Young people now are used to a society where instant gratification is expected, where you only need to go along to a TV show and it'll be discovered you ought to be a celebrity, that if something isn't working just through it away and get a new one. I think many young people today may fail the tests to see if they good tough marriage out for life. That may sound pessimistic but marriage isn't always easy. You do have to work at it. When the going gets tough you have to find a solution. Not something today's woke generation seem to me to be that good at.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Oct 16, 2021 5:29:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 16, 2021 14:22:28 GMT
But he also said this:
These remarks later had to be revised, or rather the translation and interpretation of them did, as "most" is a trigger word for some --- it implies more than 50 percent (and maybe disturbs them by pointing out a trend they'd rather not see, eh?) --- while "many" or "a vast number" is more imprecise, and could mean "most", but it does not have to.
I think he was on to something. Many (most? a vast number?) people do not get married because they are seeking to follow God's vocation for them, and to save their souls that way. No, they're in love, in many cases having sex already and even living together, in some cases they have already had children together, and they want to be together. Quite a difference. They "do the church thing" because that is what their upbringing has been, society expects it, and church weddings are fun and pretty. I won't say they have no religious motivation whatsoever, but it's not "front and center". And if they've got a plan to use contraception from the get-go, and to "plan their families" like they're ordering pizzas, well, that says a lot.
As I always say, if you are not ready --- despite your best efforts using NFP --- to have a child nine months after the wedding day, then you're not ready to get married yet, so wait until you are. (And even contraceptives fail.)
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Oct 16, 2021 16:21:15 GMT
I think he was on to something. Many (most? a vast number?) people do not get married because they are seeking to follow God's vocation for them, and to save their souls that way. No, they're in love, in many cases having sex already and even living together, in some cases they have already had children together, and they want to be together.
I guess that there has been an essential change in Catholic teaching on fornication? Before Vatican II it was wrong, however, now His Holiness teaches that cohabiting couples can have a true marriage without actually being married?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2021 13:12:57 GMT
I think he was on to something. Many (most? a vast number?) people do not get married because they are seeking to follow God's vocation for them, and to save their souls that way. No, they're in love, in many cases having sex already and even living together, in some cases they have already had children together, and they want to be together.
I guess that there has been an essential change in Catholic teaching on fornication? Before Vatican II it was wrong, however, now His Holiness teaches that cohabiting couples can have a true marriage without actually being married? No, what you have here is a very informal address, I did not read the whole thing, just the part you cited, and it reads more like Dr Phil or Oprah, than an attempt to define Catholic teaching and/or doctrine. Popes in times past did not give addresses where their remarks sounded more like a TV chat or self-help show, they chose their words more carefully. I would very humbly submit, that popes realize that any word they say, especially if it is then transcribed to the Vatican website, is going to be taken by some as "the official teaching of the Church", and they are going to be quoted by one and all. In such an address, yes, the Pope can, as the saying goes, "err as a private theologian". But it's highly debatable that he "erred".
I will defend where defense is due and warranted, and here, I must defend Pope Francis, in that it sounds more as though he was saying "no, this is not the sacrament of matrimony per se, but these people have a life together, for all practical purposes they might as well be married, and there seem to be graces here". In a sense, it is as though he is talking about a kind of common-law marriage. I have known of couples who, while not formally married (non-Catholics who didn't even have a secular marriage license), lived as though they were, were generally recognized by society as "maybe not technically 'married', but what else would you call it?", and might even have the "wife" informally using the "husband's" last name. Of course Catholics are bound by canonical form, but if they don't observe it, most of all if they're not impeded from marrying and could be if they would only trouble themselves to do it, what they have is "not nothing", it's not worthless, all it needs is regularization. And of non-Catholics in this situation? They are not bound by canonical form. So where does an individual situation "become a marriage"? I cannot say. Things such as marriage licenses and marrying before a magistrate or religious minister have not always been universal. Keep in mind that marriage has not always been as strictly defined as it is now. At one time, a couple could just go out behind the barn, make vows to one another, and presto, they were "married". And trying to figure out who Blessed Charlemagne's wife was, at any one point in time, is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. He had at least four wives, and possibly more than that. His circumstances bordered on de facto polygamy, but this didn't keep him from becoming a beatus.
Short answer, the Pope's relatively informal remarks, really more in the nature of anecdotes, do not constitute "change in Church teaching". But I wish he'd choose his words more carefully, and realize that verba volant, scripta manent --- loosely translated, "spoken words fly away, but written words stay". And there are people who are determined to seize upon his every word, to advance whatever cause they want to advance.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Oct 17, 2021 18:49:13 GMT
the Pope's relatively informal remarks, really more in the nature of anecdotes, do not constitute "change in Church teaching". It looks to some that His Holiness teaches that in certain cases of cohabitation, fornication is not a sin.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2021 20:55:56 GMT
the Pope's relatively informal remarks, really more in the nature of anecdotes, do not constitute "change in Church teaching". It looks to some that His Holiness teaches that in certain cases of cohabitation, fornication is not a sin. Yes, that is how it comes across, or rather, could be interpreted. No commentator should ever have to go behind a Pope and say "yes, I know that's what it sounded like, but he didn't mean it that way".
I'd like to see Popes return to the day when their public utterances were relatively terse and carefully measured. There are many people who think "anything the Pope says is the Law, the Word, and the Gospel", as though he were infallible in any utterance. He is not like the "Propher, Seer, and Revelator" of the LDS (Mormon) sect, though that is how he is viewed by many. He is the Vicar of Christ with a charism of extraordinary infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra --- which clearly this was not --- ordinary infallibility when he teaches what the Church has always taught, and that is it.
I get this. Ever since Humanae vitae came out in 1968, Catholics who have sought to hold to doctrinal orthodoxy in all things --- and that should be all Catholics, though sadly, it is not --- have reacted with "you have to obey the Pope in all things, and you can never disagree with him". This is an exaggerated view of the papacy, indeed, among the most extreme such people, it is outright papolatry. When HV was promulgated, you had huge percentages of Catholics, laypeople and, unfortunately, priests and religious, standing up and saying "the Pope is wrong". This necessitated a defense, and as far as I am aware, nothing like this had happened since the Protestant Reformation, and we all know how that ended up. Yes, you have probably always had the occasional crank, the odd little lady in the village, or the random peasant, who would say, as I have pointed out elsewhere, "oh, pfui to the Pope, pfui to the priest, they do not know, they do not understand", but these were outliers, not the general run of Catholics in this place or that. Their voices of dissent counted for nothing, and nobody really listened to them. Catholics, generally speaking, were not highly educated, they really didn't understand the "why" of the Faith, they basically memorized and did what they were told. They didn't really parse whether something the Pope said was extraordinarily infallible, ordinarily infallible, a disciplinary matter that could be changed, and certainly not a private opinion, because once bishops were elected Pope, they really did not have publicly broadcast "private opinions" --- their immediate assistants, the papal court, and so on, might hear them say something, but it wouldn't be splashed all over the world press the next day. It has only been in fairly modern times that encyclicals were even addressed to anyone besides bishops and, possibly, priests. The laity were at the end of the food chain, so to speak, and just knew what they were told by their priests. So far as I am aware --- and I could be wrong --- no Pope (aside from Peter, who wrote several of the New Testament epistles) ever wrote books or articles once he became pope, and obviously did not give radio or television interviews or impromptu "press conferences" on board ships, trains, or planes.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Oct 18, 2021 19:11:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 19, 2021 1:35:38 GMT
Why is it such a stretch to believe that cohabitation of two individuals that behave the same as a married couple who have received the sacrament of marriage would not be fornication.
The Church does after all presume that marriages outside the Church are valid, since the Church requires an annulment before those individuals can be married in the Church.
Many states, not certain about other countries have what they call common law marriage, where if two individuals hold to be married and present themselves as married, they are by state definition married. Would this be any different than cohabitation of two individuals who act as if they are married?
They may not have a sacramental marriage, but legal marriage and presumed valid by the Church.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Oct 19, 2021 4:29:36 GMT
They may not have a sacramental marriage, but legal marriage and presumed valid by the Church. I thought that part of the requirement for validity of marriage for Catholics is that the consent of the Catholic couple be given in the presence of two witnesses and before a priest (or deacon). BTW, I don’t see how you can have it both ways: 1. Mostly every marriage conducted in the Catholic Church is invalid. 2. Common law marriages are valid for Catholics even if there were no witnesses to the agreement.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 19, 2021 12:59:26 GMT
Yes, true, I had in mind the pre-Vatican II popes, as well as John XXIII and Paul VI. Pope John Paul I (Luciani) never got a chance to write anything after he became pope.
It's pretty hard to imagine David Frost sitting down and interviewing Pope Paul VI. Interesting to contemplate, but still pretty hard to imagine.
And it's worth noting, as a side point, that Paul VI never issued another encyclical after Humanae vitae. Ten years without an encyclical. That's kind of odd.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 19, 2021 13:02:31 GMT
Why is it such a stretch to believe that cohabitation of two individuals that behave the same as a married couple who have received the sacrament of marriage would not be fornication. The Church does after all presume that marriages outside the Church are valid, since the Church requires an annulment before those individuals can be married in the Church. Many states, not certain about other countries have what they call common law marriage, where if two individuals hold to be married and present themselves as married, they are by state definition married. Would this be any different than cohabitation of two individuals who act as if they are married? They may not have a sacramental marriage, but legal marriage and presumed valid by the Church.
For non-Catholics not bound by canonical form, following your reasoning, common-law marriages that become legal marriages (even if after a period of time) would indeed be considered valid by the Church, so it seems, unless proven otherwise. Good point made.
Also, if one or both spouses are not baptized Christians, then there is no sacrament, only a natural marriage. Natural marriage predates even Judaism, indeed, it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 19, 2021 13:05:41 GMT
They may not have a sacramental marriage, but legal marriage and presumed valid by the Church. I thought that part of the requirement for validity of marriage for Catholics is that the consent of the Catholic couple be given in the presence of two witnesses and before a priest (or deacon). BTW, I don’t see how you can have it both ways: 1. Mostly every marriage conducted in the Catholic Church is invalid. 2. Common law marriages are valid for Catholics even if there were no witnesses to the agreement.
No, Catholics are bound by canonical form for validity. A Catholic cannot have a valid common-law marriage.
And pace the comments of Pope Francis (as well as my own poor comments!), all Catholic marriages, conducted according to canonical form, are considered valid unless proven otherwise in a Catholic marriage tribunal.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 19, 2021 15:53:04 GMT
I thought that part of the requirement for validity of marriage for Catholics is that the consent of the Catholic couple be given in the presence of two witnesses and before a priest (or deacon). BTW, I don’t see how you can have it both ways: 1. Mostly every marriage conducted in the Catholic Church is invalid. 2. Common law marriages are valid for Catholics even if there were no witnesses to the agreement.
No, Catholics are bound by canonical form for validity. A Catholic cannot have a valid common-law marriage.
And pace the comments of Pope Francis (as well as my own poor comments!), all Catholic marriages, conducted according to canonical form, are considered valid unless proven otherwise in a Catholic marriage tribunal.
So if two Catholics get married outside the Church and then later on get divorced, and one or both of them want to get married in the Church, what must be done about their previous marriage in order to get a sacramental marriage within the Church.
|
|