June 5, 2007
Letters to the Editor
U.S.Catholic
205 W. Monroe St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Dear Editor,
I would like to respond to the article in your June edition entitled "A Betrothal Proposal" by Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch.
The teaching of the Catholic Church about fornication is clear and unambiguous: it is always objectively a serious sin (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1755, #1852, #2353). Couples who live together without marriage do in fact live in sin objectively.
Because the position of the authors is contrary to Church teaching about the intrinsic evil of fornication, I have disassociated the Omaha Archdiocese from the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University.
Neither Lawler nor Risch are reliable teachers of Catholic moral theology, and certainly are not spokespeople for the Church regarding human sexuality and sacramental marriage.
I remain sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Elden Francis Curtiss
Archbishop of Omaha
One year during my time as a catechist for RCIA we had four soon-to-be-married candidates cohabiting. When I found out about it, I scheduled a meeting with the program director and parish deacon. Early in the meeting I used the term "living in sin." You would have thought I dropped a Baby Ruth into the punch bowl. "I object to the term 'living in sin.'" "That's really not an appropriate way to describe the situation." "I think we want to avoid judging them." The candidates were confirmed, and I ... disassociated myself from the program.
Posts
17 comments:
Smack Down. May be the start of a trend of Bishops in the mold of St. John Fisher, Card. Newman, etc.
Even Bishop Clark is railing at the NYS legislature.
Bravo. Crisp, clean and timely.
I may be a little naive, but I doubt it. Especially since I've been around some.
I suspect there are couples out there, who have convinced themselves (a bit of a stretch to be sure, but never mind for a moment) that cohabitating was a matter of expediency or logistics, in anticipation of the impending nuptials. Now, there was a time when the blushing bride would simply live with her parents right up until the big day, while her future provider made ready with the future love nest. But many couples today find themselves in a different city, far from home, family, and/or sympathetic landlords.
Were I a pastor faced with such a couple, I would make no bones about "living in sin," but in my next breath I would urge them to seek an alternative. I might also have sought out older couples in the parish with "empty nests" who could put up a young lady for up to six months (as the ladies tend to make better house guests than the men, at least in my experience).
The teaching of the Church is meant to keep us safe, and to help get us to heaven. It's not a stick to beat people over the head with. Sometimes people actually want to do the right thing, even when they're not.
I'm not speaking without a little experience here. I wouldn't mind hearing from a priest right about now.
Were I a pastor faced with such a couple, I would make no bones about "living in sin," but in my next breath I would urge them to seek an alternative. I might also have sought out older couples in the parish with "empty nests" who could put up a young lady for up to six months (as the ladies tend to make better house guests than the men, at least in my experience).
Great suggestions. Mine was to advise the couples to live as "brother and sister" until marriage. (It was rejected.) At the very least, the conversation must be had and the teaching explained. Part of the rite is an assertion on the part of program sponsors, directors, and catechists that the candidates and catechumens have no impediments to receiving the sacraments. It behooves us to take that pledge seriously.
I find it interesting that the section of the article covering the suggested change is titled "A Modest Proposal".
Maybe their suggestion is actually just an attempt at satire! Or maybe they're just not too Swift!
I LOVE it. "..not too Swift."
But do realise that this is a movement from the Holy Spirit to move the Church back to it's "pre-Trent" days.
Oh, I remember those happy times so well!
Archbishop Chaput concurs with his brother bishop in Omaha.
Perhaps the word 'concubinage' would have been more agitating.
David-
I like your suggestions. One of my regrets in life is that I cohabitated for one month before getting married. My husband-to-be had to start a new job and I started grad school in a city far from family/friends (Cincinnati, actually). I wish I had tried harder to find somewhere else to stay until the wedding. We lived as brother and sister, but I am sure people assume otherwise.
Now, #1) how can I get all judgemental about others cohabitating?
#2) friends have actually used our experience to justify their own cohabitation ("look, even Sarah and Eric did it, so it must be OK"). Argh!
David Alexander said he wouldn't mind hearing from a priest on this, so, here goes:
I am a priest who works regularly with couples preparing for marriage. Couples come in and some of them (maybe even half) make no bones about their living arrangement (co-habitation at the very least). I usually do ask them if they can reasonably separate (most DO have somebody in town they can live with) and they are usually fairly reluctant. I speak to them about marriage, its meaning, the difference between cohabitation and Sacramental Marriage, the giving of scandal, the increased likelihood of divorce given their disposition, the need to develop a chaste approach to their marital life, etc. All of which, usually falls on deaf ears. When this does not work, I have to play the trump card: Since cohabitation is likely to cause scandal (there are some innocents who are still scandalized by such behavoir) we need to reconsider the particulars of the ceremony - "a simple exchange of vows in the sacristy with two witnesses on a Saturday morning..." at which point the bride's attitude begins to change ("well, maybe we could separate...") Usually that takes care of the difficulty. Is it the best way to deal with it? I don't know, but after going through all the problems (moral, psychological, practical) with co-habitation, usually to no avail, this is a way, I find, I am able to "meet them where they are at." They will still derive benefit from separating, even if it is a matter of them jumping through hoops - they are still left with the clear impression that it is not just sleeping apart that is required, but that they remain chaste (which for singles entails abstinence). After that, we continue to discuss, if necessary, the implications for their living apart in the intervening meetings before the Wedding.
If there are other priests reading this, I would be curious to hear how they deal with it.
"David Alexander said he wouldn't mind hearing from a priest on this..."
...and I wasn't kidding. Thanks. The "Saturday morning in the parlor" option is what I would have done. Many dioceses, including mine (Arlington VA), simply prohibit cohabitation before marriage outright.
I do have a question though. What do you do with couples already civilly married who want their union convalidated? Do they have to live apart too?
I know a priest who offers a bed in the rectory to the young man.
And again, this situation is a reflection of incredibly BAD catechesis. I was a baptized Catholic, but nothing more when I got married and my husband was a baptized and confirmed Catholic who knew absolutely NOTHING about the faith. We cohabitated for a few months prior to our wedding and not one person sat us down to explain why it was a bad idea. His mother was not happy with the situation, but she objected to it more on a cultural level than anything else. We lived 4 hours from our hometown, I was completely estranged from my family and we felt (emphasis on felt) it was a perfectly legitimate solution (save money, two people living in an unfamiliar town, getting married anyway).
To make a long story short, we both regret our decision very much and wish that someone, anyone had told us the truth. Sure, we might have reacted with a big "Mind you own business!" But at least we would have had the information to make a decision. There was no pastoral care at all and the priest who married us was aware of our situation.
We experienced similar revelations when we finally heard the full teaching on contraception. Again, no one bothered to fully articulate why the Church teaches the way she does and so we just thought she was out to lunch and completely irrelevant on the matter. Thanks be to God for Janet Smith and her tape "Contraception: Why Not." I still wonder why this wasn't discussed in our marriage prep program (talk about inadequate!) But that's a conversation for another thread.
Nerina
Years ago I worked with a woman (not Catholic), who was living with her boyfriend (they owned a house together). I don't know the particulars of what was discussed with her minister, but he absolutely refused to marry them in his church because of their living arrangement. So they had to find another church across town. I remember how impressed I was with his stand--while other co-habitating Catholic couples I knew were being married at Mass, no questions asked.
A dear priest in our city refuses to marry co-habiting couples in public. They must be married in a private (parents only) ceremony, because they are giving scandel to those who consider them already married.
One such couple, with a child in common, lived as brother and sister for almost a year. Their honeymoon was marvelous, as was their wedding.
I've also known people who never did anything untoward before the wedding, for economic reasons live as brother and sister for several months before their wedding. I'm glad they did make the effort, but... geez, I still can't believe one of them couldn't find _some_ place else to live, even if they kept the stuff in the shared apartment.
I mean, I've lived in some pretty cruddy places so as to avoid asking for parental loans, and I've had some friends who resorted to some fairly odd expedients to deal with odd housing situations (housesitting for months on end is a favorite). So....
I do think it would be a good thing if parishes could set up something to match short-term house guests/renters with host families. (It might also be a way to provide charitable cash to people who are too proud to take charity.) It would probably make it easier for people to stay chaste if they weren't going home to a lonely, empty apartment, too, but instead were staying with a family.
David Alexander has a further query:
"What do you do with couples already civilly married who want their union convalidated? Do they have to live apart too?"
I usually ask them if they are willing to live as brother and sister (even if under the same roof) until the convalidation. Granted, depending on the situation of the couple (understanding of the Sacrament, practice of Catholic faith length of civil marriage, etc.), the convalidation may not be long in coming.
This has had remarkable effect in some cases. One couple whose marriage I convalidated were so impressed by my request that they have come constantly commented to the new priest in that parish how grateful they were that they DID live as brother and sister in that time (however short it was).
Many priests are afraid of what will happen if they present the Truth, afraid that people will leave or complain or look at them askance. Many who go out on a limb and present the Truth to their couples are sometimes shocked by the difference it makes inthe lives of these couples. Surprised by Truth - Imagine that!
What would Jesus do? I hardly believe he would not marry them. Once you allow yourself to judge others you become the sinner. Not my words, but His.
Post a Comment