I am more than willing to consider that I might be wrong, which is why I asked for evidence. I am not going to assume that everything a random person on the internet says is true, and so, I hope you will forgive me if I don’t just automatically assume that you are correct simply becuase you say so.
However, there was a further reason I asked you to provide proof. Namely, that it is a very strong accusation to claim that a Catholic is expressing views contrary to those held by the Catholic Church. If you are going to make such a harsh accusation against me I would appreciate it if you actually gave some kind of evidence for your claim that I actually deserve said accusation. Otherwise it is merely an ad hominem.
Finally, since you wanted me to ask an aopologist on CAF I took the time to search the ask an apologist section and I have found a very intriguing thing, the apologists all agree that there can be some circumstances where it is ok for people of the opposite sex to live together, sometimes even if they are a couple. They may not occur frequently, but the possibility of them existing is real. Which is essentially what I have been saying.
Here are some excerpts
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11255
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124103
Notice the language used, it would be an occasion of sin for
most people (therefore not for
all.) Also note that he says this behaviour
could be the cause of scandal, not that it is, but that it could be. Again, it all depends on the particular circumstances, which is the point I was making in my post.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=18880
Again, here, we have an example of an apologist speaking of it as a rare thing when there would be just cause for chaste cohabitation, but not an impossible thing. We even see here the willingness to accept that in some rare cases it may still be just and moral even if you cannot completely eradicate scandal caused by it. That is precisely because of the Catholic principle of double effect which I brought up in my post.
So lets go over this again. The main points I made in my post were
1) The three aspects of living together which are sinful are actual sin, the near occasion of sin, and scandal.
(Note that these are the only things any of the apologists focused on in their responses, implying that I am correct in that these are the only aspects which are sinful)
2) That whether or not scandal is caused and what the extent and chance of scandal being caused are depends on the individual circumstances.
(Again, this is held up by the apologists responses as they also speak about this.)
3) That the principle of double effect allows one to perform an action with both good and bad results so long as the bad results are both proportionate to the good results and were not at all intended or desired results.
(This is again held up by the apologists responses in that Michcelle Arnold pointed out that it could be just to live together in certain rare cases even if scandal could not be completely eliminated, though, in such cases, the couple must, of course, do all they can to reduce the chance of causing scandal)
So please, remind me again what exactly it is that I said that is contrary to Church teaching?
