M
maryjk
Guest
Thank you, you are right.
She is talking about homeless people, or rather, people who would be homeless if they didn’t stay with someone of the opposite sex.
- Status
W
white_sheep
Guest
Then what is the point of coming up with a hypothetical of doubtful possibility? We both know people come up with these ridiculous “hypotheticals” and then apply it to themselves.
Also, I deny your conclusion that shacking up is best. Far better than that would be if the man simply accepted homelessness. Get a tent. Most of the people who have ever lived and a fair number alive today have lived essentially that way. Modern camping supplies are fantastic.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I agree. These boards are filled with people who post a question to try to find the one loophole to make their situation ok and guilt free. We do no favors to those people by coddling and squabbling about outlandish situations where really there is ALWAYS a better answer.
Can I use ABC IF
Can I have an abortion If.
Can I be homosexual and live with my partner “if”
Can I vote pro choice if
Can I get remarried after a divorce if.
Can I go to a protestant church if
Can I miss Mass if.
These people just want to do the bear minimum to still be stamped “approved” by the church. Honestly there is no respect or thought given to the examples of how to get to heaven. Of the saints and the lengths they went to to be Holy and to not do the “minimum” And then the Words of Jesus and the Church history itself is forgotten. All because in some hypothetical situation the person wants to know that what they are doing CAN be justified in extreme circumstances. Never thinking "How can I die to myself and live for Christ. So now, we have this situation which I will put up there with “An alien impregnated me last night, can I abort it?” Where a poster wants to see exactly how a moral rule can be bent and apply that to their own conscience.
We do no favors in these exceptional exorcises except lead others to justify their own shortcomings and weaknesses. We should be encouraging others to sainthood.
In the US there is no reason for the OP to have a situation where it is ok.
M
Memaw
Guest
AMEN, thank you, God Bless. Memaw
T
thewanderer
Guest
Just because you are afraid someone will use the truth as an excuse for them to sin doesn’t change what the truth is. We should not be hiding from the truth or pretending that it is never moral for people of the opposite sex to live in the same house. Will some people use that fact to convince themselves that its ok in their situation even when its not? Possibly, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the correct answer to the OP’s question.
T
thewanderer
Guest
What is the point? How about better understanding how to determine the morality of complex moral situations? I know thats why questions like this interest me. Just because some people come up with hypotheticals to try and find a way to excuse their sinful behaviour does not mean that all people do. And, seeing as Catholics are required to assume the best of others and their intentions it is wrong to assume that the OP is asking this to try and get away with sinning. The relevant passage from the CCC is here.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
My point is that there are circumstances where it is perfectly moral, because of the principle of double effect, for a couple to live chastely in the same building. To deny that is to deny Catholic teaching. Now, if it is perfectly moral for them to live chastely in the same building, why would you advocate making one of them homeless? Sheltering the homeless is one of the corporal works of mercy. If there is no sin in a particular situation which will give an otherwise homeless person shelter why would you choose to not perform the corporal work of mercy of providing shelter? Isn’t performing a corporal work of mercy better than not doing so?
W
white_sheep
Guest
Oh great, now shacking up is a corporal work of mercy.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I think I understand where you are coming from. The problem is I don’t ever want to visit that place…
You can package it all you like. It is still watered down nicey nicey “don’t offend” Theology.
Blech!
It just does not sit right with me. The OP wants to ad an “if” at the end as if it were changing the morality of chastity or scandal.
It is an exercise in futility because it is not a feasible situation. In a war torn persecuted country where all civil government is chaos and families are spread apart in some sort of apocalyptic hunger game situation then sure the OP can house a female. For as little time as possible. But come on. What does encouraging the loophole finders really accomplish. Are you adding to the OPs Holiness? Are you encouraging Him to get to heaven? Are you helping him with a tough moral question? Or are you cherry picking to find the easiest way out. Theologically with EVERYTHING there is room for God to work outside the Church and His sacraments. But in my opinion, just answering the way you have is the equivalent of telling someone not to worry about baptism because God is love and can work outside of the sacraments.
Can you give a definitive statement encouraging the OP to choose the high path or elaborate on why this situation meets extreme measures?
Immorality that is what. And I don’t wish to be judged at the end of my life and have to answer to God why I always gave the “happy” advice instead of the “hard” advice.
OP:
No, in your scenario you cannot do this. Period. No ifs.
Gee everyone thinks their situation has never been contemplated by the Church in 2000 years…
How vain.
B
Blue_Rose
Guest
- This is hypothetical
- I’m female
- I’m not American nor do I live in the USA.
- I live in a country with a housing crisis and high rates of youth homelessness
- If you read all the posts, you would have read that I asked if it was ok to sleep in a SPARE ROOM for a few days NOT long term in a partners bed!
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Well, some of us have the life experience, I think, to know exactly why a couple should not live together. I’m not sure everyone does, though.
I would say that if I was a young person in my early 20’s, which I’m not, it would have benefited me greatly to have a trusted spiritual director or confessor that I could have come to when I had serious moral choices like this to make.
I’ve learned many things the hard way, as I’m sure many of you have, too, and it would be nice to help others not to make the same mistakes we have made in our lives.
As an emergency measure, I do contend it might be the only thing to do, but I think to say with more moral certainty, more information of the situation would be needed. I hope you can find a trusted spiritual friend with whom you can talk to about this in complete confidence.
I’ll pray for you, Rose, that the Holy Spirit might guide, lead, and protect you always.
I would say that if I was a young person in my early 20’s, which I’m not, it would have benefited me greatly to have a trusted spiritual director or confessor that I could have come to when I had serious moral choices like this to make.
I’ve learned many things the hard way, as I’m sure many of you have, too, and it would be nice to help others not to make the same mistakes we have made in our lives.
As an emergency measure, I do contend it might be the only thing to do, but I think to say with more moral certainty, more information of the situation would be needed. I hope you can find a trusted spiritual friend with whom you can talk to about this in complete confidence.
I’ll pray for you, Rose, that the Holy Spirit might guide, lead, and protect you always.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Providing shelter is a corporal work of mercy. Shacking up is a very different thing.
B
Blue_Rose
Guest
Yes.
T
thewanderer
Guest
- HoosierDaddy, if you want to accuse me of watering down theology please show me exactly where I have done so. As I pointed out to Memaw throwing around huge unfounded accusations is extremely rude.
- Please explain to me how anything I have said comes even remotely close to the idea of God working His Grace outside of the Sacraments. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about at all. I am simply talking about how to determine whether an action is moral or immoral. This has nothing to do with the Sacraments or any out of the ordinary workings of things, rather this is about the ordinary way to determine whether or not something is moral.
Finally, as to the way you have assumed that the OP is just out looking for loopholes to allow her to sin, I will again point you in the direction of the CCC where it specifically says that as Catholics we are required to assume the best of others and their intentions. This means it is wrong to assume the OP is simply looking for a loophole to allow her to sin rather than that she is simply trying to better understand the Church’s teachings. In case you missed it, here is the passage from the CCC again.
T
thewanderer
Guest
This is huge. And something I wish I had talked about more in my first post. This is a complicated situation and one that requires a lot of prudence because it can so easily go so badly as well as because there are so many individual factors that come into play.
T
thewanderer
Guest
If the Church has considered the question in the OP and responded differently than I have and the apologists that I quoted please provide the quotes to help us fix our flawed understanding of Church teaching.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Now, the OP has stated that this is hypothetical, and in the hypothetical set-up, of course one would have to provide shelter! In fact, the hypothetical was intentionally set up – there are NO OTHER OPTIONS – so there could be only one answer – so why even ask the question?!
But out here in the real world, there is floor space, and there are couches, and there’s even room for a tent in the yard (and yes, I do have a camp toilet I could provide)! Out here in the real world, I still believe that the poor have more generosity when it comes to sharing from their need than the rich do sharing from their overflowing excess. If I were suddenly homeless, my friends with the two bedrooms and six kids would probably be the first to offer me their couch, or a spot in their yard for my tent and camp toilet
The flaw in your argument is with the idea that original hypothetical – no other options – cannot be challenged or changed. The original hypothetical is easily answered if it is taken at its face value with no room for other possibilities. The thread would have been very short – yes, give shelter to the homeless. One post in answer and we all move on.
But if the point of a hypothetical is to actually THINK about questions of morality in difficult situations, then there needs to be some leeway in how we interact with it.
The OP asked about romantic couples, and posters started going all over the place with whether or not non-romantic couples could cohabit. Others asked questions about whether there were really no other options, or whether someone with no other options should even be in a romantic relationship. These are good discussions, natural outgrowths of the initial question, and shouldn’t be shouted down with the argument “but the OP said…”
My request would be that, when posting, we would each be clear exactly which hypothetical situation we are addressing – Are the man and woman romantically involved or not? Are we assuming there really are no other options (post-apocalyptic hunger games [thanks, Hoosier Dad, for that one!]) or not? Are we talking about first world “no options” or refugees fleeing the Gaza Strip “no options”? As someone who came back after a couple days offline, it seems that many posters aren’t even discussing the same question.
If we must stay only to the original hypothetical with no ability to challenge or expand any of the details, then we might as well close the thread
God bless you!
Gertie the gotta-get-to-sleep-now-girl :yawn:
T
thewanderer
Guest
Blue_Rose,
I definitely think a lot of people nowadays like to dismiss the idea of causing scandal as though it should not be a consideration at all. And since the only part of my post people seemed to pick up on was the fact that I was admitting that the Church teaches that the scenario you are presenting can be moral under certain circumstances, I want to make sure the other aspect of what I was saying doesn’t get lost in the argument that blew up from that.
It is a very real thing to consider, especially since the more religious you are known to be the more you become a moral example for others. Even if you don’t realize it, simply by being known to be a faithful member of your Church you will be viewed as a moral example by friends who are not religious, which means that if you do something that makes your friends think you aren’t being chaste it is more likely to encourage them in an unchaste lifestyle than if you were not a moral example to them. That is an important thing to remember when weighing everything up in the balances for the principle of double-effect and is often overlooked or dismissed.
I definitely think a lot of people nowadays like to dismiss the idea of causing scandal as though it should not be a consideration at all. And since the only part of my post people seemed to pick up on was the fact that I was admitting that the Church teaches that the scenario you are presenting can be moral under certain circumstances, I want to make sure the other aspect of what I was saying doesn’t get lost in the argument that blew up from that.
It is a very real thing to consider, especially since the more religious you are known to be the more you become a moral example for others. Even if you don’t realize it, simply by being known to be a faithful member of your Church you will be viewed as a moral example by friends who are not religious, which means that if you do something that makes your friends think you aren’t being chaste it is more likely to encourage them in an unchaste lifestyle than if you were not a moral example to them. That is an important thing to remember when weighing everything up in the balances for the principle of double-effect and is often overlooked or dismissed.
B
Blue_Rose
Guest
Yes, Thank you for explaining.
B
Blue_Rose
Guest
Now, the OP has stated that this is hypothetical, and in the hypothetical set-up, of course one would have to provide shelter! In fact, the hypothetical was intentionally set up – there are NO OTHER OPTIONS – so there could be only one answer – so why even ask the question?!
But out here in the real world, there is floor space, and there are couches, and there’s even room for a tent in the yard (and yes, I do have a camp toilet I could provide)! Out here in the real world, I still believe that the poor have more generosity when it comes to sharing from their need than the rich do sharing from their overflowing excess. If I were suddenly homeless, my friends with the two bedrooms and six kids would probably be the first to offer me their couch, or a spot in their yard for my tent and camp toilet
The flaw in your argument is with the idea that original hypothetical – no other options – cannot be challenged or changed. The original hypothetical is easily answered if it is taken at its face value with no room for other possibilities. The thread would have been very short – yes, give shelter to the homeless. One post in answer and we all move on.
But if the point of a hypothetical is to actually THINK about questions of morality in difficult situations, then there needs to be some leeway in how we interact with it.
The OP asked about romantic couples, and posters started going all over the place with whether or not non-romantic couples could cohabit. Others asked questions about whether there were really no other options, or whether someone with no other options should even be in a romantic relationship. These are good discussions, natural outgrowths of the initial question, and shouldn’t be shouted down with the argument “but the OP said…”
My request would be that, when posting, we would each be clear exactly which hypothetical situation we are addressing – Are the man and woman romantically involved or not? Are we assuming there really are no other options (post-apocalyptic hunger games [thanks, Hoosier Dad, for that one!]) or not? Are we talking about first world “no options” or refugees fleeing the Gaza Strip “no options”? As someone who came back after a couple days offline, it seems that many posters aren’t even discussing the same question.
If we must stay only to the original hypothetical with no ability to challenge or expand any of the details, then we might as well close the thread
God bless you!
Gertie the gotta-get-to-sleep-now-girl :yawn:
I’m over it.
D
DarkLight
Guest
It’s a hard balance to strike. I know for my part it’s hard because growing up it seemed everything was scandal. Buying beer at the grocery store? Someone might conclude that Christians encourage drunkenness! Short hair? Someone might think you’re a lesbian and be encouraged to sin! Have a public meeting with a married man? Someone might think you were having an affair!
It’s kind of like the modesty debates in that regard. With clothing, we don’t want to be immodest but neither do we wish to be restricted to muumuus because some man might be tempted by the realization that you have breasts. With scandal, we want to avoid leading others into sin, but we also don’t want to be held hostage because “someone” might get the wrong idea. Especially with the difference between causing scandal and causing someone to be scandalized.
- Status