Living with a sibling of the opposite sex should never be cause for scandal. It would be a goshdarn ridiculous assumption that they are in a sexual relationship. It is quite different from friends of the opposite sex living together.
I clearly wasn’t using it that way. I was using it in its literal meaning, to share a habitation.
There are three definitions of the word. Two of which involve intimate relationship. These are clearly contrary to Church Teaching and a grave matter. The third definition is one which is not contrary to Church teaching.
Yes. See above. There are three definitions of the word. In the dictionary, it is proper to use the word with EITHER of the definitions intended. One must know the context to know which definition is intended.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, money is the worst of reasons. However, actions motivated to save money is not in and of itself sinful.
But your “opinion” is painting with a broad brush. You assert it is improper. I suggest that you consider the following from the Catechism. It is improper to make an assumption without “sufficient foundation”. To assert that it is wrong in all cases makes a statement that you believe they having an intimate relationship.
You must read the third definition which provides for co-habitation w/o fornication. You must keep in mind that for it to be sinful two things must BOTH be happening: Living together and fornication. If only the living together is happening, it is not sinful.
If there is no fornication, living together is not in and of itself sinful. I don’t think anyone here has advocated the wisdom of two unrelated people of opposite sexes living together. We agree that it is likely to cause undue “occassion of sin” that should be avoided if possible. This being said, I don’t think it is proper to rush to judgment that two unrelated people living together are necessarily living sinfully. I cited an example where my son lived for a summer while in college with three women (one of whom was my cousin) while they all worked on internships.
I think we all agree that if they are living together and having intimacy, it is a sin. But the operative phrase is related to “having intimacy.”
Look I understand how the word co-habitation is taken out of context nowadays, the fact is it means the same to the church now as it did 100 years ago. people fornicating. the fact that we as a younger generation now use it to simply mean anything, is our lack of the meaning and understanding of co-habitation. This in no way should affect the Catholic church, we are to learn her terminology not the other way around. I am just saying that to co-habitat is to fornicate plain and simple.
If that is going to be your interpretation, then two siblings of the opposite sex are just sharing expenses, not cohabitating.
If they are co-habitating.
The third definition is as a different species of animal, Humans are not animals nor are there different species of us. To co-habitat is to co-habitat meaning to fornicate. The later should not be used as a loop hole for every one to say, well if we live like different species of animals then we can co-habitat. Animals don’t have the moral order they only have instinct. We all know it is wrong and should never be done, we also know what the cases the Church will even look at if couples have to “cohabit”.
Even so the Church would still not allow co-habitation, unless determined on a case by case basis . Then it would be living as brother and sister, not **co-habitating **.
To save little bit of money so things aren’t so tight, and have displeased God so greatly in doing so. I would rather trust in God Implicitly, be butt broke poor while living in a cardboard box, than to sell my soul for a little bit of cash flow.
I have read the CCC , I know these passages quite well. I am not making a rash judgment. Nor am I trying to harm someones rep. I am saying that to co-habitat is to fornicate. When the church tells a couple who are not yet wed, but have children, or a civil union, or are married from a different religion to live as brother and sister they do just that they tell them to Live, not to co-habitat.
It is the term cohabit meaning to live with all, i.e the USA.
I would no more approve of this, than I would be to send a woman to live in a houseful of men she didn’t know, but hey that is just me. The fact the cousin was there may have lessened the “occasions of sin” some small degree, but it is still improper, and immodest and it is very likely, and indeed it seems that living in such a situation would most certainly have been an “occasion of sin”.
Yes I agree that fornication is wrong, which is why co-habitation is wrong.
Maybe we have been saying the same thing. Let me remove the use of cohabit and just deal w/ definitions:
I know I am jumping in way late in this,
In your mind, co-habitating involves sexual behavior.
Look claim all yall want. That assumption is on yalls part. shame shame.
Truelove88
Now Hellisreal I am not so certain that what you are saying is polite or charitable. To tell someone so blatantly that you think they are in schism is an assumption, a word that seems overly used here. If Truelove88 is incorrect we don’t need to beat her over the head, such is what I see going on, We need to out of CHRISTIAN CHARITY point her in the correct direction by giving her solid teachings of the church, not our own advice.