Cohabitation is fornication

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayne89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First, you do not know where I am coming from, you haven’t read the article.
Second, not all “Church teaching” is rigid and inflexible. It was “Church teaching” that said betrothal would allow for pre-ceremonial sex, not pre-marital sex, and if you bothered to read the article, you would know where I was coming from, and what “Church teaching” was before the Council of Trent.
Third, it takes time for the Church to digest new information, and the statistics show those who are unofficially betrothed but intend to marry don’t suffer the same consequences(high divorce rates) as those who are FORNICATING without intent to marry. THAT is new information that renders the current pastoral approach to be outdated.

Its a subject for discussion, not for gouging each others eyes out with proverbial “Church teaching”. Church teaching is made to serve the people of God, the people of God are not made to serve church teachings.

A proposal is not an attempt to change Church teaching, but to have them clarified and make them speak to our world in our time, without making any compromises. There is nothing in this article that is radically liberal or “against Church teaching”, before you go jumping to legalistic conclusions - at the risk of alienating weak Catholics permanently.

Thae article is not focused on those “playing house” or “shacking up”, it’s about Catholics caught between a rock and a hard place.
uscatholic.claretians.org/sit…rp4kdy3.app14b
I did read what you posted. IT IS WRONG. Did you even read the article by Archbishop Chaput? He stated quite clearly and definitively that it was immoral and bafflingly naive. This is coming from a Church shepherd. And the church teachings are guidelines for each catholic to live there lives by. Not the other way around.
 
I did no such thing - nor would I EVER call anyone on a forum a name - please review my numerous posts to find even one instance of name calling.

I did say you are the one with a difficulty in embracing a word’s full definition. One cannot pick and choose the definition that best fits what you want - then pronounce to all that that is the only definition that fits. That is NOT charitable.
You may not have used any names but that did not make your remarks charitable, and most certainly not appreciated. It is not my problem if YOU don’t understand the CORRECT MEANING of the word CO-HABITATION, websters is quite clear.
 
First, you do not know where I am coming from, you haven’t read the article.
Second, not all “Church teaching” is rigid and inflexible. It was “Church teaching” that said betrothal would allow for pre-ceremonial sex, not pre-marital sex, and if you bothered to read the article, you would know where I was coming from, and what “Church teaching” was before the Council of Trent.
Third, it takes time for the Church to digest new information, and the statistics show those who are unofficially betrothed but intend to marry don’t suffer the same consequences(high divorce rates) as those who are FORNICATING without intent to marry. THAT is new information that renders the current pastoral approach to be outdated.

You cannot separate one from the other they are both fornication. The church is Infallible when it comes to the teaching of faith and morals, period.
Its a subject for discussion, not for gouging each others eyes out with proverbial “Church teaching”. Church teaching is made to serve the people of God, the people of God are not made to serve church teachings.

Church Teachings are laws and rules Catholics **must **follow, in order to be GOOD CATHOLICS. The church doesn’t follow each individual person.
A proposal is not an attempt to change Church teaching, but to have them clarified and make them speak to our world in our time, without making any compromises. There is nothing in this article that is radically liberal or “against Church teaching”, before you go jumping to legalistic conclusions - at the risk of alienating weak Catholics permanently.

A catholic can only grow if they know and follow the truth.
Thae article is not focused on those “playing house” or “shacking up”, it’s about Catholics caught between a rock and a hard place.
uscatholic.claretians.org/sit…rp4kdy3.app14b
To be stuck between a rock and a hard place are often chosen by the participant and the choices they make.
 
  1. I cohabit with my wife
  2. I cohabit with my daughters
  3. My sister-in-law cohabited w/ my wife and I for a year while she and her husband were in a career transition.
  4. A mother-in-law cohabited with her widower son-in-law while she recovered/rehabbed from major joint surgery.
  5. Two retired nuns cohabit.
  6. A seminarian cohabited with my Pastor this summer.
co·hab·it http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png* *1.to live together as husband and wife, usually without legal or religious sanction. 2.to live together in an intimate relationship. 3.to dwell with another or share the same place, as different species of animals.
[Origin: 1520–30; < LL *cohabitāre, equiv. to co- co- + habitāre to have possession, abide (freq. of habére to have, own)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source co·hab·it %between% (kō-hāb’ĭt) intr.v. co·hab·it·ed, co·hab·it·ing, co·hab·its

  1. *]To live together in a sexual relationship, especially when not legally married.
    *]To coexist, as animals of different species.
    [Late Latin cohabitāre : Latin co-, *co- + Latin habitāre, to dwell; see inhabit.]

    co·hab’i·tant, co·hab’it·er* n., co·hab’i·ta’tion n., co·hab’i·ta’tion·al adj.*

    euphemism since c.1530 for couple living together without benefit of marriage (see habit).

    This Source cohabit
    verbshare living quarters; usually said of people who are not married and live together as a couple
    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
    Main Entry: co·hab·it
    Pronunciation: kO-'ha-b&t
    Function: intransitive verb
    : to live together as a married couple or in the manner of a married couple —co·hab·i·ta·tion /kO-"ha-b&-'tA-sh&n/ noun
    Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
    The topic of this thread is COHABITING!
    Above is the English meaning for this word.
 
In all of this we have to ask ourselves two questions.
How do we know who we come to follow and why do we follow them.
The church has given us pastors,Bishops, and the magestrium to follow, it is up to us to follow them.
Please read this article by Archbishop Chaput, the link is below.
archden.org/dcr//news.php?e=424&s=2&a=8897
It is clear this article is discussing “as many as 90 percent of the couples who present themselves for marriage preparation already live together and have sexual relations.”
You may not have used any names but that did not make your remarks charitable, and most certainly not appreciated. It is not my problem if YOU don’t understand the CORRECT MEANING of the word CO-HABITATION, websters is quite clear.
It is, in fact, quite clear that the word has multiple meanings and that therefore cohabitation does not equal fornication.
No one is calling you names.
Nor do I see anyone disagreeing that living together and having sexual relations without marriage CAN be called fornication and CAN be called cohabitation. That doesn’t mean the two words are always equal. That is the issue you refuse to acknowledge even while quoting the definition the compels the immutable logic.
Please stop trying to rewrite the English language.
The truth hurts, sorry .** Co-habitation is fornication period. **Stop trying to find loopholes and accept Church teaching.
If you don’t have the facts to prove my statement wrong, which you don’t, then please show me where it says co-habitation is anything but fornication in the Catholic teachings. All I see right now are people trying to find loopholes and reasons to justify sin.
The fact that these posts have been anything but charitable prove just that, that these people can’t rightly prove to me that Co-habitation is not fornication. I go by church teachings, cannon law, Rome, and CUF. Just to let you know, Even Websters Dictionary agrees with me.
Well have fun.
God Bless
TL88
I am not rewriting English.
You have no cause to insinuate that I am looking for a loophole or that I don’t accept Church Teaching. Both comments are extremely uncharitable.
Where is your support for the “Catholic teaching” that “cohabitation is fornication.” You have the burden of supporting your thesis and have not posted any such teaching so far.
 
There sure are a lot of truly silly and meaningless threads on this forum.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that says cohabitating is wrong, unless of course sexual activity is involved, which then becomes fornication. For anyone to say otherwise is simply silly and wrong.
 
Summary;
To have sexual relations before marriage or to live together as husband and wife before marriage …fornication. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to Heaven.

To live together **as husband and wife **before marriage…cohabitation. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to heaven.

The Holy Bible RSV Compare to NAB
Galatians Chapter 5

Chapter 5

1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery…
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. 14* For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, * drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.** 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.
(C)

I think we can all find common ground here.
 
Summary;
To have sexual relations before marriage or to live together as husband and wife before marriage …fornication. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to Heaven.

To live together **as husband and wife **before marriage…cohabitation. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to heaven.

The Holy Bible RSV Compare to NAB
Galatians Chapter 5

Chapter 5

1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery…
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. 14* For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, * drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.** 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.
(C)

I think we can all find common ground here.
I concur.
 
Let’s take this example:

Say an engaged man and woman decide to get a two bedroom apartment together. Say they sleep in separate rooms and never have sexual contact of any kind. Say they have no such marital contact until they are married in a Roman Catholic Church.

Can anyone here say those two people were living a sinful life before they were married?
 
Mary Henley,

Posting dictionary definitions is completely worthless, please stop. This is a “Catholic” discussion and dictionaries are secular in nature.

Post Catholic sources and your opinions…please.
 
Summary;
To have sexual relations before marriage or to live together as husband and wife before marriage …fornication. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to Heaven.

To live together **as husband and wife **before marriage…cohabitation. Mortal sin. Denied entrance to heaven.
With, of course, the understanding that they can repent, confess and be forgiven.
 
Let’s take this example:

Say an engaged man and woman decide to get a two bedroom apartment together. Say they sleep in separate rooms and never have sexual contact of any kind. Say they have no such marital contact until they are married in a Roman Catholic Church.

Can anyone here say those two people were living a sinful life before they were married?
Firstly, they would have added temptation to sin. Secondly, they would be setting a very bad example for others around them who would assume they were also sleeping together. I had enough trouble convincing my friends that I was not having sex with my then-fiance, and we did not live together before marriage! Some of them just didn’t understand the concept. How much more difficult would it have been if we had lived together?
 
Firstly, they would have added temptation to sin. Secondly, they would be setting a very bad example for others around them who would assume they were also sleeping together. I had enough trouble convincing my friends that I was not having sex with my then-fiance, and we did not live together before marriage! Some of them just didn’t understand the concept. How much more difficult would it have been if we had lived together?
I think it would be very rare for a couple to do what I proposed without falling into sin. Yet, my point is that couple would not be sinning in any way. People who judged them would be sinning.
 
I think it would be very rare for a couple to do what I proposed without falling into sin. Yet, my point is that couple would not be sinning in any way. People who judged them would be sinning.
What about causing scandal?
 
What about causing scandal?
If the couple in my example informed everyone they know that they are not sleeping together, then any scandals that results is caused by other people. Clearly, any loving couple who did as I proposed in my example, would certainly also informed all they know of their living arrangements. My point is that living together in the same “home” is not always a sin.
 
Firstly, they would have added temptation to sin. Secondly, they would be setting a very bad example for others around them who would assume they were also sleeping together.** I had enough trouble convincing my friends that I was not having sex with my then-fiance, and we did not live together** before marriage! Some of them just didn’t understand the concept. How much more difficult would it have been if we had lived together?
Why would they assume that?
Also, your follow-up sentence shows that whatever the reason folks assume that a couple is sleeping together, it is apparently not being caused by living together because the same assumption is made in either event.
 
Mary Henley,

Posting dictionary definitions is completely worthless, please stop. This is a “Catholic” discussion and dictionaries are secular in nature.

Post Catholic sources and your opinions…please.
Must I say Daddy please…before I post?:eek:
“Opinions” are worthless when it comes to Church teaching.😛
I will post as I see fit.:cool:
The secular dictionary is far from worthless…it helps to enlighten those who are challenged by the English language.🤷
 
Ok you confused me, could you please clarify.
I posted the link to a article from the Vatican showing you that when the word cohabitation is used its not always in a sexual context unless we are saying that the Pope as a boy was doing something improper with the Jews?

Apparently the Catholic Church does not always equate cohabitation to mean a sexual relationship

“…that the author of the turning of this dialogue of the Catholic Church with its brothers of Israel was a Pope for whom, as an adolescent and a boy, **the cohabitation **with Jews was part of every day life”
See vatican article
 
The Sacraments and Their Celebration Matrimony
X. THE SEPARATION OF THE SPOUSES
2. SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND ENDURES

Marriage is defined as ''living together in undivided partnership." Thus, married couples are obliged to preserve the common bond of conjugal cohabitation unless a justifying reason excuse them. 173 Normally conjugal life requires and obliges to the habitual sharing of bed, board, and home (communio tori, mensoe et cohabitationis) for the full attainment of the purposes of marriage. Severance of this conjugal life, saving the bond itself, is called imperfect divorce or separation… Mutual consent to complete and perpetual separation is seldom permissible because of the danger of incontinence and scandal. Only the Holy See may authorize this in the case of couples desiring a higher life of perfection.
(C)
Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma
Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils
Callistus II 1119-1124 Lateran Council I 1123

CALLISTUS II 1119-1124
LATERAN COUNCIL I 1123
Ecumenical IX (concerning investitures)
Simony, Celibacy, Investiture, Incest *

359 Can. 1. 360 Can. 3. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the intimacy of concubines and of wives, and cohabitation with other women, except those with whom for reasons of necessity alone the Nicene Synod permits them to live, that is, a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no suspicion may justly arise [see n. 52 b f.]. *
HONORIUS II 1124-1130

(C)
The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World Pope John Paul II
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
Part Four

b) De Facto Free Unions
  1. This means unions without any publicly recognized institutional bond, either civil or religious. This phenomenon, which is becoming ever more frequent, cannot fail to concern pastors of souls, also because it may be based on widely varying factors, the consequences of which may perhaps be containable by suitable action.
    Some people consider themselves almost forced into a free union by difficult economic, cultural or religious situations, on the grounds that, if they contracted a regular marriage, they would be exposed to some form of harm, would lose economic advantages, would be discriminated against, etc. In other cases, however, one encounters people who scorn, rebel against or reject society, the institution of the family and the social and political order, or who are solely seeking pleasure. Then there are those who are driven to such situations by extreme ignorance or poverty, sometimes by a conditioning due to situations of real injustice, or by a certain psychological immaturity that makes them uncertain or afraid to enter into a stable and definitive union. In some countries, traditional customs presume that the true and proper marriage will take place only after a period of cohabitation and the birth of the first child.
    Each of these elements presents the Church with arduous pastoral problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and moral (the loss of the religious sense of marriage seen in the light of the Covenant of God with His people; deprivation of the grace of the sacrament; grave scandal), and also social consequences (the destruction of the concept of the family; the weakening of the sense of fidelity, also towards society; possible psychological damage to the children; the strengthening of selfishness).
    (C)
    .
 
The Sacraments and Their Celebration Matrimony
X. THE SEPARATION OF THE SPOUSES
2. SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND ENDURES

Marriage is defined as ''living together in undivided partnership." Thus, married couples are obliged to preserve the common bond of conjugal cohabitation unless a justifying reason excuse them. 173 Normally conjugal life requires and obliges to the habitual sharing of bed, board, and home (communio tori, mensoe et cohabitationis) for the full attainment of the purposes of marriage. Severance of this conjugal life, saving the bond itself, is called imperfect divorce or separation… Mutual consent to complete and perpetual separation is seldom permissible because of the danger of incontinence and scandal. Only the Holy See may authorize this in the case of couples desiring a higher life of perfection.
(C)
Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma
Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils
Callistus II 1119-1124 Lateran Council I 1123

CALLISTUS II 1119-1124
LATERAN COUNCIL I 1123
Ecumenical IX (concerning investitures)
Simony, Celibacy, Investiture, Incest *

359 Can. 1. 360 Can. 3. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the intimacy of concubines and of wives, and cohabitation with other women, except those with whom for reasons of necessity alone the Nicene Synod permits them to live, that is, a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no suspicion may justly arise [see n. 52 b f.]. *
HONORIUS II 1124-1130

(C)
The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World Pope John Paul II
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
Part Four

b) De Facto Free Unions
  1. This means unions without any publicly recognized institutional bond, either civil or religious. This phenomenon, which is becoming ever more frequent, cannot fail to concern pastors of souls, also because it may be based on widely varying factors, the consequences of which may perhaps be containable by suitable action.
    Some people consider themselves almost forced into a free union by difficult economic, cultural or religious situations, on the grounds that, if they contracted a regular marriage, they would be exposed to some form of harm, would lose economic advantages, would be discriminated against, etc. In other cases, however, one encounters people who scorn, rebel against or reject society, the institution of the family and the social and political order, or who are solely seeking pleasure. Then there are those who are driven to such situations by extreme ignorance or poverty, sometimes by a conditioning due to situations of real injustice, or by a certain psychological immaturity that makes them uncertain or afraid to enter into a stable and definitive union. In some countries, traditional customs presume that the true and proper marriage will take place only after a period of cohabitation and the birth of the first child.
    Each of these elements presents the Church with arduous pastoral problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and moral (the loss of the religious sense of marriage seen in the light of the Covenant of God with His people; deprivation of the grace of the sacrament; grave scandal), and also social consequences (the destruction of the concept of the family; the weakening of the sense of fidelity, also towards society; possible psychological damage to the children; the strengthening of selfishness).
    (C)
    .
We have always said that congugal cohabitation is wrong and against Teaching. This combining all cohabition as fornification is the goofiest thing I’ve ever seen on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top