Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems

PichelleWedding · October 2010

I love this article. I'm a devout Catholic but I don't believe pre-marital sex or cohabiting after engagement is sinful. I've tried to understand the argument of waiting, but seriously, after the age of 25 and after dating for many years, if you can stand to stay away from each other physically I think there's something wrong with the relationship. So yeah, the article below is very eye-opening, especially how the Catholic teachings weren't always the way they are now! Hmmm....

"The first sexual intercourse between the spouses usually followed the betrothal-a fact of the Catholic tradition that has been obscured by the now-taken-for-granted sequence of wedding, marriage, sexual intercourse."

http://www.uscatholic.org/life/2008/06/a-betrothal-proposal

agapecarrie · October 2010

Actually, they are just changing the terminology. The consent still had to be there prior to the sexual act.

The marital embrace is a self gift, of what has already been promised and vowed. An engagement today is not a vow. The graces from the sacrament do not exist yet.

Please read Christopher West books on Theology of the body to better understand it.

If you can't say no, what does it mean when you say yes?

ootmother2 · October 2010

Interesting article. One of the other articles, the beating of George Soros made me laugh a bit.

ring_pop · October 2010

Technicalities of "when are we allowed to have sex" aside, what I really like about this proposal is that it does better reflect how DH and I felt about our relationship around the time that we got married.

By the time we agreed to marry each other, there was already a bond. Our engagement may not have been witnessed by the church, but well, we were definitely committed. By the time the actual wedding rolled around, we felt more like it was a formality. I mean, we were excited, it was a great day, and we took the wedding and our marriage seriously. But the wedding day wasn't necessarily the only defining moment of our marital relationship.

PichelleWedding · October 2010

ring_pop, I couldn't've said it better!! Some couples might see the wedding as a defining moment. And in the church, it is. I'm so happy to have God recognize what we already have. But for us, we were each other's from day one. And we've been through more in that last 4 years than most married couples- poverty, longing, months apart due to military, illness...

I would just find it insulting to be put in a category with Jon Doe and Jane Doe who move in together on a college campus and "live in sin" so they say

Jay&Marissa · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:9e73ecfe-09b3-4bb9-b6fb-470931e9e055">Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]I love this article. I'm a devout Catholic but I don't believe pre-marital sex or cohabiting after engagement is sinful. I've tried to understand the argument of waiting, but seriously, after the age of 25 and after dating for many years, if you can stand to stay away from each other physically I think there's something wrong with the relationship. So yeah, the article below is very eye-opening, especially how the Catholic teachings weren't always the way they are now! Hmmm.... ;) "The first sexual intercourse between the spouses usually followed the betrothal-a fact of the Catholic tradition that has been obscured by the now-taken-for-granted sequence of wedding, marriage, sexual intercourse." <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.uscatholic.org/life/2008/06/a-betrothal-proposal">http://www.uscatholic.org/life/2008/06/a-betrothal-proposal</a>
Posted by PichelleWedding[/QUOTE]

My husband was my "first love" and high school sweetheart. We were together 6.5 years before we got married. We pretty much knew we wanted to get married when we were 18. We were most definitely committed and still are.

Waiting for marriage was hard, but it was a sign of love. It showed we had the self-control we now need to practice NFP and that we will need later on in the event of pregnancy, illness, etc. Our honeymoon rocked. I find the comment about something being wrong if you are willing to wait pretty dang insulting.

Besides, how many "fully committed" engagements are broken off? Historical betrothal implied a lifelong, binding committment and really isn't analogous to modern engagement today. I know the 50% number is floating out there, and even if it is not that high, it is still a lot. I've heard of quite a few breaking up during the prep the Church gives--many couples realize they aren't quite as in agreement as they thought.

Additionally, a fundamental part of Church teaching is being open to children...if you are engaged and having sex are you really open to children? I highly doubt most brides want to rock a baby bump on their wedding day.

You may be committed to each other, but on your wedding day, you are making the promise before God--and He should be the center of your marriage if you are a devout Catholic.

And historically, this would be a step backward. The changes the article mentioned that resulted in "modern marriage" were a direct result of the problems the situation this article promoted cause. In fact, quite a few Protestant groups had a HUGE problem with it and was a small part of the Reformation. It wasn't uncommon for a man to be "bethrothed" to multiple women--then they had to try and figure out who he was actually married to, etc. This was also an era where women were treated as property and often had little say in who they married.

Ironically, the Church did exactly what so many people today accuse it of not do ing--"adapting to social change"

Riss91 · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:9e73ecfe-09b3-4bb9-b6fb-470931e9e055">Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]I've tried to understand the argument of waiting, but seriously, after the age of 25 and after dating for many years, if you can stand to stay away from each other physically I think there's something wrong with the relationship. Posted by PichelleWedding[/QUOTE]

While it's definitely difficult to wait in this day an age, where couples get married much later in life than say, 100 years ago, it is certainly not impossible. It takes a lot of self control, will power and trust. We waited. We were both 27. We'd been together for 10 years, survived extreme long distance for long periods of time. We are such a strong couple and have an amazing relationship. Please reconsider your blanket statement that couples that don't give in are somehow damaged.

I do agree that the statistics are not really reliable. They never are. I don't think that cohabitation before marriage is an indicator of likely divorce. But that doesn't mean that cohabitation before marriage is ideal.

Hope61 · October 2010

As PPs said, betrothal in the past is very very different from engagement now. There was an actual ceremony (which a few of my friends have done!) in a Church in which you essentially vow to get married. It still exists, and it does not make pre-marital sex ok. And the old way of doing it--betrothal then sex then marriage--was banned in the 1500s.

I think the main problem with this idea is that it puts "me" before "God", "us" before "Church" and "sex" before "marriage." The whole idea of having sex and then consummating the marriage with a wedidng is completely backwards. The Church teaches that you get married and then the marriage is made completely valid and indissoluble (consummated) by the marital act. In other words, the Church has the marriage and the spiritual union between two people first, and the sexual act second. To have it the other way around is to say that sex is the most important part and that the Sacrament is second. Body before soul.

I also have a major problem with the logic of this article. Basically, it says that since couples live together and that is the norm these days, the Church should change Her teachings. Thanks be to God that it does not. Can you imagine if the Church was constantly changing its teachings to match what the people want? The Catholic Church is first and foremost God's Church, and like it or not, He makes the rules.

This article saddens me very much. It is a horrible twisting of God's and the Catholic Church's teachings, and unfortunately, is likely to mislead many Catholics. It highlights the all-too-poular glorification of sex and demeaning of marriage, and tries to convince people that this is A-ok.

I am sorry if my words offend anyone. But I have read this article before, and it really upsets me. And the OP's insinuation that there is "something wrong" with my relationship didn't help.

PichelleWedding · October 2010

Well, I don't think the Church would be giving in to social change. I think it would be a healthy change that needs to be considered. I do not think it's healthy for everyone to wait until marriage, and waiting until marriage does not necessarily make a good marriage. If two people want to wait, that's fine. But if they know the right choice for them is to go ahead, I do not believe it's a sin. There's little argument for waiting til marriage aside from traditions (now I'm not advocating sleeping around, but like, upon engagement, sure).

Your opinion is that it's fine if people can stand to wait after years and years. My opinion is that from what I've seen, it's highly questionable after a certain point. And just because people don't wait til marriage doesn't mean they can't practice NFP. We are practicing it, even though we are open to children now and in the future.

Hope61 · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:d50b4136-721d-4c2d-980c-0c1a3a774d60">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]But if they know the right choice for them is to go ahead, I do not believe it's a sin.
Posted by PichelleWedding[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible agree with you.

I do not have time to post more tonight. I am afraid of this thread turning into another "you're judging me/you're hating my Church" kind of thread, but I'm willing to enter into discussion about this in the future, if its possible and if you'd like to :)

PichelleWedding · October 2010

KatieAnn- no offense taken

This conversation is good. It's bothered me for a long time that the only thing I disagree with the church on is waiting til marriage. I don't believe it's right. I think it's healthier to go ahead once you know he's the one.

I still don't believe in birth control, etc. That stuff is nasty and dangerous. NFP is the way to go. ^.^

Jay&Marissa · October 2010

Seriously--look into Theology of the Body. It will explain it all.

In a nutshell, sex speaks the language of "forever"
Engagement is not forever. Marriage is.

caitriona87 · October 2010

..."their subsequent ritual wedding, before or after the birth of a child, consummates their marriage and makes it indissoluble....and when their relationship has reached such a plateau of interpersonal communion that they will decide to ceremonialize it...For those nuptial cohabitors who do not proceed to a wedding, their martial relationship begun at betrothal would not be consummated and would therefore be dissoluble."

These are the parts I find most troubling/incompatible with Catholic theology. That "plateau of interpersonal communion" comes from the sacramental graces of marriage and the union of sexual intercourse, not the other way around. The last line is really problematic as well. Sex between spouses is an image of the union between Christ and the Church--free, total, faithful, and fruitful. How can you claim faithfulness or totality when the relationship is dissoluble? I feel like this model is really no different than what our culture promotes--a "trial marriage" or "test-driving the car," where walking away is a legitimate option. It's just couched in "Catholic-friendly" terms. As some PP's mentioned, I think study of Theology of the Body really throws a light on why all the teachings on sexual morality in the Church are part of a cohesive whole and can't be picked apart one by one.

newlyseliski · October 2010

While I know it's challenging to wait until marriage and may seem pointless nowadays, I believe that it is still a worthwhile endeavor. I don't appreciate the article's implication that those who wait until they get married aren't as deeply committed as those who cohabitate and have relations prior to marriage. My fiance and I have been dating a total of 4 1/2 years now (he's in school for a second degree) and waiting has been challenging to say the least! By the time we're married, we'll be just shy of our 5 year anniversary of dating. We're taking NFP classes right now, too, and our instructor noted the value in waiting as allowing the couple to develop our non-sexual communication skills, patience and self-control necessary in the practice of NFP. Theology of the Body is good stuff... I recommend "Called to Love" and "Good News about Sex and Marriage."

I can understand how cohabitation happens more frequently now with the delay of adulthood, lengthy post-secondary education and financial challenges... but it is still possible to live separately from one another despite these new challenges our generation faces... trust me, I know! If the Church compromised on its teachings on cohabitation and premarital sex, it's a slippery slope to permitting contraceptive use and the losing the fullness of understanding of sex as a total, faithful and fruitful self-gift within the sacrament of marriage.

I don't want my wedding to be a formality or the signing of a contract... it's the celebration of a sacrament!

Calypso1977 · October 2010

so im curious... DFWIndian had her formal engagement ceremony. is this the type of ceremony that this article is talking about? DFW, if you are reading this thread, i'm curious for your input/thoughts.

clearheavens · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:50e9406b-958c-473b-aa1b-3c606a74cd4b">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]so im curious... DFWIndian had her formal engagement ceremony. is this the type of ceremony that this article is talking about? DFW, if you are reading this thread, i'm curious for your input/thoughts.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

<div>DFWIndian's formal engagement ceremony and my Vietnamese tea ceremony were completely cultural events. Sure, there was a priest there to lead prayer, but there was no sacrament. Our engagement ceremonies are a family tradition practiced in our culture where the fathers agree on the arrangement and both sides set a date. We will have our sacrament in the Church according to the form of the Liturgy on the date that both sides agreed on.</div>

Calypso1977 · October 2010

so is the basis for the cultural ceremonies symbolic of the betrothal that the article discussed?

clearheavens · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:87d8987f-0e30-460c-a33b-834e93570793">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]so is the basis for the cultural ceremonies symbolic of the betrothal that the article discussed?
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

<div><div><strong>No.</strong> Like any other engaged couple, we only promise...to promise. The engagement is not an irrevocable and absolute commitment. Marriage, on the other hand, is indissolvable. There are situations (especially with abuse involved) where the Church readily recognizes and advises married couples to separate or get a civil divorce. But they are still married, and their marriage can only end by death of one of the spouses.</div><div>
</div><div>Christopher West writes, "When a bride and groom stand at the altar and declare their consent before the Church, it's not merely a formal recognition of something that already exists between them. At the moment they give their consent, the bride and groom are fundamentally changed. They become right then and there husband and wife. What did not exist five minutes before does now--a marital bond sealed by the Holy Spirit that, once consummated, can never be dissolved by anything but death." I couldn't have said it better.</div><div>
</div><div>FI and I are undoubtedly committed to each other. We can't wait with every essence of our beings to get married. But the feelings of love and our commitment to one another does not equate the sacrament of marriage. Wedding vows are not an expression of a feeling that we're already committed. Not until the moment when we exchange our vows and administer the sacrament to one another does an indisoluble bond actually exist.</div><div>
</div><div><div>I'm sure lurkers are asking, <em>"Hey, what difference does it make if I have sex with my FI a week before we're married, and a week after we're married?"</em> Honestly, if you put it that way, really nothing: an engaged couple who is having sex fail to understand the meaning of sex and marriage as Christ teaches us, and when they get married, they may very well continue to fail to understand. (Here's what baffles some people when the Church says that married couples are called to be chaste even during marriage!) The fact that the couple is now married does not automatically make the sexual union what it is supposed to be. Sex is what it's supposed to be if it expresses the commitment to free, total, faithful, and fruitful self-giving. This is the language of the marriage bond.</div><div>
</div></div><div>I don't want the OP to feel bad for getting opposition. It's a very common question among Catholics. I was actually in the same shoes before I studied Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II, and couldn't recognize what is the difference between engagement and marriage other than a certificate and no certificate. But TOB highlights the beauty of the our human sexuality and marriage and helped me love FI with the highest love possible. Our responses on this board is just a clarification on what the Church actually teaches. The Church does not impose her teachings, she merely proposes them. We respect how the OP feels about the topic. Each of us must choose. But I encourage everyone to take up some TOB reading. It really set me on fire. See for yourself.</div></div>

Hope61 · October 2010

There have been a lot of very good points and explanations brought up here and I'm not sure how much I could possibly add...

One thing I would like to emphasize again is that while we are all so very sure that our fiances are the ones we will spend the rest of our lives with, there is no 100% guarantee as no vows have been made. There are many devout, faithful Catholics who realize that they are actually not meant for each other. I know at least one couple who seriously discerned marriage with their spiritual director and much prayer, became engaged, and then broke off their engagement. And I read recently about a nun who had been engaged and broke it off when she realized that she actually had a vocation to the religious life. What if these people had had sex? How sad they would be to know that they had not saved themselves for their actual spouse (whether it be someone else or God Himself). And if two people are engaged and are not really meant to be together, sex will make it that much harder to see the truth. Maybe they will be happy together, but maybe they would have been happier with the one truly meant for them.

Finally, I think that Archbishop Fulton Sheen discusses this topic very well (albeit indirectly) in his book "Three to get married." I'm re-reading it now and only on the first chapter, and its been over 2 years since I read it before so I don't remember it as well as I should. Sheen says "There is no such thing as giving the body without giving the soul." (Ch.1) -- in other words, once you have had sex, you have shared your soul--something that is supposed to happen in context of Sacramental marriage.

And he also gives this great analogy: "Two glasses that are empty cannot fill up one another. There must be a foundation of water outside the glasses, in order that they may have communication with one another. It takes three to make love." In other words, we need God in our relationship. And the only way for Him to really be invited into it at such a level is by the sacrament of marriage.

clearheavens · October 2010

KatieAnne18, do you live in Pittsburgh? FI and I met at the Pittsburgh Oratory and we went to St. Paul Church. :P I love Fr. David.

Hope61 · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:eefbb764-6483-4561-84b8-3dbec304c29d">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]KatieAnne18 , do you live in Pittsburgh? FI and I met at the Pittsburgh Oratory and we went to St. Paul Church. :P I love Fr. David.
Posted by clearheavens[/QUOTE]

Oh my goodness! Yes, and thats where we met too--we were both students at the Newman Center!!! Keep Father David in your prayers--he's been having some serious health problems since the spring. He said Mass yesterday and seemed to be doing well, so thats good :)

GulfCoaster · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:0ff8f98a-15b4-4355-9dd2-309d7b14fd2d">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE] I find the comment about something being wrong if you are willing to wait pretty dang insulting. Posted by Jay&Marissa[/QUOTE]

As do I. My husband and I waited until we were married to be sexually intimate. It was not easy. But I can reassure you that there is nothing wrong with our sex life now. Our honeymoon was amazing, and the passion hasn't faded after four years. So yeah, I find your comment insulting.

[QUOTE] Besides, how many "fully committed" engagements are broken off? Historical betrothal implied a lifelong, binding committment and really isn't analogous to modern engagement today. I know the 50% number is floating out there, and even if it is not that high, it is still a lot. I've heard of quite a few breaking up during the prep the Church gives--many couples realize they aren't quite as in agreement as they thought. Posted by Jay&Marissa[/QUOTE]

I went through a broken engagement prior to meeting my DH, as did my DH. My SIL also experienced a broken engagement a few years ago. Broken engagements are not uncommon by any means, and they happen among all sorts of couples (yes, even devout Catholics). I read one study that suggests that between 25-40 percent of engagements are broken off before the wedding. So engagement today (even if the couple claims they are "fully committed") is not the same as betrothals historically.

clearheavens · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:2975c56a-454d-45dc-bdb4-cf08a2415925">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems : Oh my goodness! Yes, and thats where we met too--we were both students at the Newman Center!!! Keep Father David in your prayers--he's been having some serious health problems since the spring. He said Mass yesterday and seemed to be doing well, so thats good :)
Posted by KatieAnne18[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Katieanne18, you got PM! :)

</div>

Hope61 · October 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:544a4f37-9701-44e9-812b-a4b188e48bf5">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems : Katieanne18, you got PM! :)
Posted by clearheavens[/QUOTE]
Right back at you :)

(sorry for interrupting the thread, ladies....)

DFWIndian · November 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_nuptial-cohabiting-not-seems?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:3055fd2d-97e6-4100-af2a-eb7a07d636a6Post:50e9406b-958c-473b-aa1b-3c606a74cd4b">Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems</a>:
[QUOTE]so im curious... DFWIndian had her formal engagement ceremony. is this the type of ceremony that this article is talking about? DFW, if you are reading this thread, i'm curious for your input/thoughts.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

I know I'm late at responding. Either way YES! I did exactly what the article says. Our engagement is a betrothal. It's pretty much a binding contract in the church. We have witness and the whole deal. AT NO POINT did this say we could start having sex or start living as a married couple. All this said was the under God and in our churches we are coming together to have the Sacrament of Marriage. Honestly, there is a lot of disgrace and humilation that comes from breaking off the engagement, but it does happen. This is why they would never allow you to act as a married couple, per say.

Honestly, this I know will come off rude, but if you don't feel it is a sin then that is between you and God. You can read the text, articles, and anything else you would like, but ultimately it's up to you on the path you decide to take. Saying there is something wrong with the relationships of the girls who decide to wait is not up to you and definately not right. The church doesn't change because of what the secular world does and it great!! We are a lot more strict the Latin rite church in that we shouldn't even really be spending time with our significant others until the time of marriage and our parents should pick our spouses. Those aren't church teachings they are cultural traditions put in our churches so it is up to decide what we will follow in those aspects. Sex before marriage is not one of those cultural bound traditions, it is a church tradition. Justify it how you may, but I hope you read all sides of it. I applaude those girls who have waited so many years.

Calypso1977 · November 2010

glad you chimed in DFW! thanks.

mica178 · November 2010

Obviously, any decision you make is between you and God. But I do believe that despite the fact that it is impossible to study cohabitation outcomes with standardized, controlled trials, there's something to be said about waiting until marriage to live with your significant other.

And, I found this interesting:

http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/cohabitationthenumbers

Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems

Re: Nuptial cohabiting- not what it seems

Choose Another Board

Search Boards