Child shacking up

[DreadVandal]

mikew262:

I think it’s easy for some of these folks to say it, but if they ever had to make a decision like that, they might sing a different song.

While it is legitimate to point out that some acts would be quite difficult; that doesn’t mean that the arguments of those who are “talking tough” so to speak are unsound.

 

[mikew262]

DreadVandal:

Well, Socrates points out that if we truly love our friends and family, then we will want to see justice done to them so that injustice can be removed from the soul. So I suppose if my children did something that merited investigation by the inquisition and punishment by the Church or state, then if I loved them I would have to turn them in.

 

[mikew262]

DreadVandal:

While it is legitimate to point out that some acts would be quite difficult; that doesn’t mean that the arguments of those who are “talking tough” so to speak are unsound.

Technically, some of the points made are sound. However, the one where you are willing to turn your back on your child and possibly destroy a otherwise loving parent-child relationship to make a point is NOT sound IMO.

 

[setter]

Actually, based on the opening post I come to a rather different conclusion, I am also willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt. Infact, the opening post shows in the first three sentences that he no longer conciders himself Catholic and that he is engage to be married.

We all have our premises for which way that we extend the benefit of the doubt (the obvious lack of detail makes all of us guilty of presumption).

All the arguments that this is selfishly motivated rely on a presupposition which is not present: what came first? the abandonment of the faith or the idea of “shacking up”. It is most likely that this has been brewing for some time.

My argument is based on my understanding and common sense knowledge of the effect of original sin to prefer our own sinful choices of what we perceive as being good being for us over that which is denied to us by God’s natural and moral law.

One “abandoning” faith in search for the essence of faith is radically different from one who “abandons” faith to remove the shakles of conscience to pursue selfish desire. I hope that you see the difference and appreciate the graduated (“fermenting and brewing”) sequence of temptation and sin choice/selfish preference over God. It entails self-responsibility, brutal honesty, accountibility and the education of intellect to resist the temptation to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

1783 “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”

Perhaps my own situation is similar.

**It is not really an option for her to find her own place to live due to **

visa requirements and money but my son is hesitant on living together before the actual wedding ceremony; despite not believing in a theistic god he is still very morally concerned, influenced by Wittgenstein. **Nothing has been decided yet but is this just a case of “shaking up”? ** Usually real life is more complex than we initially think.
There are always moral options. How do I now this? Because the grace of God is always available to do the right that we know we need to do – "Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’” Mark 10:27

Did St. Monica abandon St. Augustine during his wild youth? I think that her behaviour towards her son is a good example of Christian charity, something often lacking in the suggestions here.

Since you include this in your post to me, please cite where I suggested anything less than a charitable response to this wayward child or that this mother “abandon” her son.

… from the opening post it is clear that they are engaged to be married.It seems to be a loving mature relationship and not simple two people shaking up.

It is unbecoming (and dishonest) to attempt to redefine and elevate sin to the dignity of “a loving mature relationship” when in reality it is simply the behavior of “two people shaking up”. Good intentions and “engagement” do not make licit that which is illicit.

Originally Posted by setter

I can comment though that “brilliant” people often are more susceptible to a greater array of sophistication of self-deception when it comes to intellectually rationalizing sin.

 

[Mom_of_5]

The point I was trying to make is that VERY often, those two people in love and “going to be married”, never marry once they live together before marriage. Also, if they do marry, the marriage is more likely to fall apart than if they waited to love together before they were married. The statistics are there on another similar post. I really am a very loving mom. I love my children so much I do not want them to leave the morals I raised them with when the opportunity arises to “shack up”. I would never cut off communication with a child over this situation. The “child” might decide that he or she just can’t talk to mom anymore, meany!! The reason for no communication in a case such as this is that the “child” knows he or she is wrong but won’t admit it. With a bit of maturity, he or she will. Just because this person is 26 does not make him a mature person.

If my child asked me if he/she could/should “shack up”, I would say no and give the reasons. then there is not a thing I can do if the decision goes against my morals. I pray for my step-daughters. Have not cut off communication, however they cannot sleep with their “shack ups” when they come to visit so they don’t sleep at our house. Their decision!!

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[St.Sharky]

So he’s found himself a potential life partnerand decided to move out. I say good on him.

It is important for them to move in together because then they can see if the relationship will actually work on a full time basis.

I dont believe that there are still people who would call this kind of thing immoral, or wrong. he hasnt started satan worphipping, he hasnt started a life of crime, he;s just moved out.

Its not that big a deal

 

[DreadVandal]

St.Sharky:

So he’s found himself a potential life partnerand decided to move out. I say good on him.

It is important for them to move in together because then they can see if the relationship will actually work on a full time basis.

I dont believe that there are still people who would call this kind of thing immoral, or wrong. he hasnt started satan worphipping, he hasnt started a life of crime, he;s just moved out.

Its not that big a deal

So I take it you are not Catholic then? And by the way, there are not only millions of people who would say that living together without marriage is a sin (assuming that the couple is making MoJo), but most major religions of the world still hold it as a sin.

 

[DreadVandal]

mikew262:

Technically, some of the points made are sound. However, the one where you are willing to turn your back on your child and possibly destroy a otherwise loving parent-child relationship to make a point is NOT sound IMO.

Well, how would you define “turning your back” on your child? Perhaps that is the real issue. We need to define that clearly then we can see the extent to which we really disagree.

 

[DreadVandal]

Why the shock? Who knows how many souls the inquisition saved? The rooting out of error and the punishment of vice is a great good.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

The Definition of Morality
The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/morality-definition/

Catholics understand there is one truth, not multiple systems that are all equal.

We have no impression that her son knowes it is wrong but is going to do it anyways.

If he does not know, he still may be culpable as we are required to know certain things.

By being an agnostic he has regected the moral system which considers the particular act immoral.

Yes, and that alone may make one morally culpable.

I don’t run around saying Catholics are immoral because they don’t observe the Sabbath or Jewish dietary laws because Catholics don’t accept that moral system.

Of course not as that would not apply.

I highly doubt that he is living a celibate life now, prior to cohabitaiton. Living together is not likely an excuse to commence sexual relations, there are likely other reasons such as a willingness to become more serious in the commitment, experience spending more time together etc. I would even go so far as to think that he likely thinks his decision is the mature and moral one.

An erroneous conscience does not always obviate culpability.

 

[mikew262]

Mom of 5:

The point I was trying to make is that VERY often, those two people in love and “going to be married”, never marry once they live together before marriage.

Mom of 5

No guarantee the marriage would’ve lasted if they hadn’t lived together first. The hypothetical couple you are talking about found out they were incompatable before they took their marriage vows, and saved themselves the possible heartache of a divorce later.

I’m not defending the “living together” thing, just disputing the point you’re making.

 

[fix]

setter:

One “abandoning” faith in search for the essence of faith is radically different from one who “abandons” faith to remove the shakles of conscience to pursue selfish desire. I hope that you see the difference and appreciate the graduated (“fermenting and brewing”) sequence of temptation and sin choice/selfish preference over God. It entails self-responsibility, brutal honesty, accountibility and the education of intellect to resist the temptation to exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Thank you for pointing this out. The new pope calls it the dictatorship of relativism.

 

[mikew262]

DreadVandal:

Well, how would you define “turning your back” on your child? Perhaps that is the real issue. We need to define that clearly then we can see the extent to which we really disagree.

I believe you first brought up the “turning your back” thing on post #60. How do you define it? Maybe I misinterpreted your intent.

 

[mikew262]

DreadVandal:

Why the shock? Who knows how many souls the inquisition saved? The rooting out of error and the punishment of vice is a great good.

Huh? The Inquistion was a terrible time in Christian history. Many people suffered needlessly because of baseless and ignorant allegations. How could you justify turning your children over to be tortured and executed?

 

[MikeinSD]

How about if the person yr child is shacking up with can bring lots of cold hard cash to the table? In my experience, shacking up with a person with $ tends to mute lots of moral objections.

One of my sibs lived with his fiancee who just happened to have both family and personal money. I have lots of devout Christian relatives – both Catholic and Baptists. Of course folks objected to his living situation. But objections were more discreet. And whispered rather than frankly said. Since his fiancee’s parents have multiple homes, social status, and she had $ from her grandmother. Doesn’t hurt that she is beautiful too .

My sib and his fiancee did marry. They have a good marriage lasting 20 + yrs now. They have several kids – all doing well. Funny, and very human, that the all devout Christians all attended the Catholic wedding. And nothing was mentioned about them living together beforehand.

As the philosopher Cindy Lauper says, “Money changes everything.”

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

1.) I have had to make the choice.
2.) There are ways to keep communication open without being a proponent of one’s offspring shacking up.
3.) There might be some people who speak more quietly over money. No doubt. But that is not everybody, and that does not make it right.
4.) Statistics show those who live together first are more likely not to follow through to marriage, or will divorce, moreso than those who wait.

 

[contemplative]

OutinChgoburbs:

3.) There might be some people who speak more quietly over money. No doubt. But that is not everybody, and that does not make it right.

Ahh yes, insidious money…can be a real problem in just about any situation.

 

[katy]

Maybe $$ was why they didn’t kick up a huge fuss, or not. I have been to other weddings of folk with that background and didn’t say much because I felt they needed support for doing the right thing, belatedly. Yet I wonder what they missed by not doing things the way God has indicated. I wanted these good things for my kids, and am saddened that the world seems to have had the most attractive word here. There are consequences to everything.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

katy:

Maybe $$ was why they didn’t kick up a huge fuss, or not. I have been to other weddings of folk with that background and didn’t say much because I felt they needed support for doing the right thing, belatedly. Yet I wonder what they missed by not doing things the way God has indicated. I wanted these good things for my kids, and am saddened that the world seems to have had the most attractive word here. There are consequences to everything.

Having been in your shoes, I think the thing to remember is that you are not the one who chose this path for him. He is a grown-up. He chose it himself.

You might have to go stand in the bathroom and repeat this in the mirror more than once or 100 times to yourself, but it is **not **your fault this is happening.

And do not snicker too much if he someday becomes “respectable” and decrees that his children will not date before they are 35.

 

[katy]

Thanks, Burbs, altho it may take 200 times… I keep thinking maybe there is something I could have done to prevent this, but really can’t think of what, exactly.