The Finer Points On Cohabitation

[Guest]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1784179' date='Feb 18 2009, 12:22 AM']

It's just a saying intended to convey and help with moral decisions. Similar to the WWJD.[/quote]

i'd prefer it be WDJD

[MithLuin]

[b]tionif[/b], there are two main requirements to make something count as 'marriage' - consent and consummation. Meaning, the man and the woman must willing give consent to the marriage (no one can be forced/coerced and have it still be considered a marriage) as well as be free to do so (you can't give consent if you are already married to someone else, for instance) and they have to consummate it. If either of those elements is missing, it isn't marriage.

Thus, if a couple made private vows, they would still be 'married', even if no one recognized this. So, the quickest way is to skip the courthouse altogether. However, there are reasons to have society recognize your marriage, so making it legal has some purpose. Also, since we have brought up the appearance of scandal - if you haven't made your vows public, everyone else will assume you are living in sin (rightly or wrongly).

If the people in question are practicing Catholics (which the thread-starter assumed), we can safely say that [i]sacramental[/i] marriage is certainly the goal, so that a private or civil ceremony, while resulting in marriage, does not constitute matrimony. From that viewpoint...'skipping' the church wedding isn't really an option.

Now, no one says you need to make a big production of it, so if you want a simple ceremony with just a few people as witnesses, that is certainly possible. The issue of planning would then be to find a priest who is willing to marry you without the typical 6-12 month waiting period.


I am curious, though, why this 'get married as fast as possible' idea would be seen as required if they actually loved each other. Engagement does serve a purpose, after all. Falling in love and deciding to get married can happen very quickly (I'm sure we all know people who met and were married within 3 months), but why would that be the goal? J.R.R. Tolkien was an orphan, and he and his brother were boarding at a house where another young orphan was also boarding. Ronald and Edith fell in love, and when their respective guardians caught on to this, the solution was to have them not live in the same house any more. Tolkien's guardian forbid him from communicating with the young woman. So, he had to wait 3 years til he turned 21 to get back in touch with her and propose. They then got married before he left for the Great War. So, I'm not saying you can't fall in love with or marry someone whose house you have shared, just that if you [i]do[/i] - why would 'get married quick!' be the most obvious way of dealing with the situation?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1782896' date='Feb 16 2009, 08:35 PM']As the economy gets worse, more and more people will be bunking together just to save money. The idea of what comprises scandal may change some too.[/quote]

Yes, in one of the worst states in the union we are already seeing parishioners move in with children / parents to ride out the economic depression that is coming. It's not unusual in other countries though.

I think it is of the upmost importance that we do not judge that which we do not know about others though. I know of one local engaged couple who lived together before marriage because the girl was being threatened and sexually abused at home. They lived chastely until marriage and their arrangement was the only one that would not leave her homeless or assaulted.