tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post8381122096597095057..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: A functional account of marriage vowsAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-33003523983703200482011-05-19T16:51:12.333-05:002011-05-19T16:51:12.333-05:00I would say they would be marital if they made int...I would say they would be marital if they made intercourse permissible.<br />There is a question whether it is possible to marry by private exchange of vows without involving ecclesiastical or civil authority.<br />The Catholic Church says that in principle yes, but by the power of binding and loosing requires that Catholics marry in front of a priest or deacon (and satisfying some other conditions) unless no priest or deacon is available (e.g., desert island). <br />Moreover, I would say that if one is in a situation where the civil community allows the marriage and won't prosecute you, a failure to involve to have a civilly binding marriage is probably a sign of lack of genuine commitment to the vows.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54364757714712182032011-05-16T12:42:33.783-05:002011-05-16T12:42:33.783-05:00About the notion of uncommitted sex being wrong......About the notion of uncommitted sex being wrong... do you think that there are non-marital commitments within which intercourse is permissible? Or would any commitments that make intercourse permissible just be marital, regardless of the social/ritual context?Sarraclabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14302108054267053039noreply@blogger.com