Cohabitation is fornication

[CuriousInIL]

Ok, that involves much older people. NOT the young ruled by there smaller brains, hormone raging, often sex oriented people we are talking about.
Not to mention you said widowers and spinsters. Not young unmarried women in the prime of life.

And, IMO one of the points a lot of the posters were trying to make is that none of these caveats was in your original posts showing why the flat statement that cohabitation=fornication was way overbroad.

 

[truelove_88]

And, IMO one of the points a lot of the posters were trying to make is that none of these caveats was in your original posts showing why the flat statement that cohabitation=fornication was way overbroad.

Please stop trying to rewrite the English language.
The truth hurts, sorry:shrug:.** 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

 

[epostle]

A betrothal proposal<<<click here

Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.

 

[truelove_88]

A betrothal proposal<<<click here

Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.

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

 

[maria29]

Please stop trying to rewrite the English language.
The truth hurts, sorry:shrug:.** 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

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”
SeeVatican article

Also here is another interesting article about cohabitation but it refers to a governmental practice.

Mariam Webster dictionary refers to the definition of cohabitation

1. To live together as or if man and wife
   2 a : to live together or in company <buffaloes cohabiting with crossbred cows – Biological Abstracts> b : to exist together <two strains in his philosophy…cohabit in each of his major works – Justus Buchler>

Late Latin cohabitare, from Latin co- + habitare to inhabit, from frequentative of habEre to have. I find this interesting as well, since many times it does just mean two things (people, cows, houses etc) cohabit the space, dwelling etc together.

 

[truelove_88]

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”
SeeVatican article

Also here is another interesting article about cohabitation but it refers to a governmental practice.

Mariam Webster dictionary refers to the definition of cohabitation

1. To live together as or if man and wife
   2 a : to live together or in company <buffaloes cohabiting with crossbred cows – Biological Abstracts> b : to exist together <two strains in his philosophy…cohabit in each of his major works – Justus Buchler>

Late Latin cohabitare, from Latin co- + habitare to inhabit, from frequentative of habEre to have. I find this interesting as well, since many times it does just mean two things (people, cows, houses etc) cohabit the space, dwelling etc together.

Ok you confused me, could you please clarify.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Please stop trying to rewrite the English language.
The truth hurts, sorry:shrug:.** 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

Truelove88: It is you who are trying to rewrite the English language. The following is the definition you posted earlier:

Dictionary Entries (2 more entries. View all »)
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·hab·it /koʊˈhæbɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-hab-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)

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)]

Words can have multiple meanings and context determines which meaning is operable. In all cases, it means “to share living relationship.”

In definition #1, the parties are having sex as that is the meaning of living as husband and wife w/o benefit of marriage (legal or religious). This is clearly fornification and grave matter. The Church condemns such behaviour.

In definition #2, this definition is similar to #1, is fornification, and condemned by the Church.

In definition #3, this encompasses people of the same sex, opposite sex, or more than two people living together who are NOT having sex. This is not fornification.

By the universal application of Definition #1 and #2 to two people living together regardless of whether or not they are actually having sex, two nuns or Pastor and Associate living in the same house are by definition fornicating.

It is clearly w/i proper vernacular and semantics to describe people living together and not having sex as “co-habitating.” This is not condemned by the Church.

For your information, fornification is by definition “sexual intercourse by unmarried persons”. This is condemned by the Church.

I cohabit with my wife and we don’t fornicate despite having sex. I cohabit my home with my two youngest daughters and we don’t fornicate. My sister-in-law cohabited with us for a year and we didn’t fornicate. My son’s brother-in-law is temporarily cohabitating with my son and his wife. The mother-in-law of a widower (wife/daughter had died a few years before) friend of my mom’s cohabited with him for six months as she recovered/rehabbed from major joint surgery and they did not fornicate. Not a single example is contrary to Church teaching.

How many examples do I have to give you of people cohabiting yet not fornicating to prove to you that these two words do not mean the same thing?

 

[jrabs]

Truelove88: It is you who are trying to rewrite the English language. The following is the definition you posted earlier:

Dictionary Entries (2 more entries. View all »)
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·hab·it /koʊˈhæbɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-hab-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)

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)]

Words can have multiple meanings and context determines which meaning is operable. In all cases, it means “to share living relationship.”

How many examples do I have to give you of people cohabiting yet not fornicating to prove to you that these two words do not mean the same thing?

I would have to agree. I do believe that Truelove 88 is the one with the definition difficulty in that she only wants to define it her way - yet not encompass the full definition of the word.

Thanks Orion in really trying hard to convey this.

 

[zzz]

Jrabs, you can add me to that list…thanks Orion!

 

[guanophore]

This is a split from another thread

This is a quote from poster TrueLove88

So, is cohabitation even with siblings or friends fornication? Is cohabitation without sexual relations fornication? Is it sinful and scandalous for a brother and sister to live together?

That’s nonsense. Fornication is having sex outside of marriage. It is not a scandal for siblings and friends to live together. However, if it is scandalous for the poster of this message, then she should not do it.

 

[jrabs]

That’s nonsense. Fornication is having sex outside of marriage. It is not a scandal for siblings and friends to live together. However, if it is scandalous for the poster of this message, then she should not do it.

already covered in the contents of this very looooooonnnnggggg thread.:yawn:

We’ve moved away from discussing siblings. Or at least I thought we did. Now we are trying to get the definition locked up.

 

[epostle]

Here’s the answer,

Let’s take the thousands of Catholics who are “living in sin”, are prenuptial, are following the pattern used before the Council of Trent, who are unjustly lumped together in divorce statistics with those who play house, and ostracize them so they can’t participate in the life of the Church, and may never return.

This article from the Claretians is a proposal to the Church for consideration, and I think formal betrothal would bring back a lot of Catholics who stay away because they are “living in sin”. It may be rejected by the bishops, it may not. What the Claretians are proposing would be an evangelization tool for weak Catholics who find themselves unable to comply with Church teachings. It does not mean they are in rebellion and they don’t deserve to be ostracized.

uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_&JServSessionIdr002=fsvrp4kdy3.app14b

 

[truelove_88]

Here’s the answer,

Let’s take the thousands of Catholics who are “living in sin”, are prenuptial, are following the pattern used before the Council of Trent, who are unjustly lumped together in divorce statistics with those who play house, and ostracize them so they can’t participate in the life of the Church, and may never return.

This article from the Claretians is a proposal to the Church for consideration, and I think formal betrothal would bring back a lot of Catholics who stay away because they are “living in sin”. It may be rejected by the bishops, it may not. What the Claretians are proposing would be an evangelization tool for weak Catholics who find themselves unable to comply with Church teachings. It does not mean they are in rebellion and they don’t deserve to be ostracized.

uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_&JServSessionIdr002=fsvrp4kdy3.app14b

First off I understand where you are coming from.
Secondly I would never agree with you position because it goes against church teaching. Christ has always condemned co-habitation the act of FORNICATION. Which is what it is.

 

[truelove_88]

I would have to agree. I do believe that Truelove 88 is the one with the definition difficulty in that she only wants to define it her way - yet not encompass the full definition of the word.

Thanks Orion in really trying hard to convey this.

I believe before you posted you were done with this thread.

 

[truelove_88]

Truelove88: It is you who are trying to rewrite the English language. The following is the definition you posted earlier:

Dictionary Entries (2 more entries. View all »)
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·hab·it /koʊˈhæbɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-hab-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)

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)]

Words can have multiple meanings and context determines which meaning is operable. In all cases, it means “to share living relationship.”

In definition #1, the parties are having sex as that is the meaning of living as husband and wife w/o benefit of marriage (legal or religious). This is clearly fornification and grave matter. The Church condemns such behaviour.

In definition #2, this definition is similar to #1, is fornification, and condemned by the Church.

In definition #3, this encompasses people of the same sex, opposite sex, or more than two people living together who are NOT having sex. This is not fornification.

By the universal application of Definition #1 and #2 to two people living together regardless of whether or not they are actually having sex, two nuns or Pastor and Associate living in the same house are by definition fornicating.

It is clearly w/i proper vernacular and semantics to describe people living together and not having sex as “co-habitating.” This is not condemned by the Church.

For your information, fornification is by definition “sexual intercourse by unmarried persons”. This is condemned by the Church.

I cohabit with my wife and we don’t fornicate despite having sex. I cohabit my home with my two youngest daughters and we don’t fornicate. My sister-in-law cohabited with us for a year and we didn’t fornicate. My son’s brother-in-law is temporarily cohabitating with my son and his wife. The mother-in-law of a widower (wife/daughter had died a few years before) friend of my mom’s cohabited with him for six months as she recovered/rehabbed from major joint surgery and they did not fornicate. Not a single example is contrary to Church teaching.

How many examples do I have to give you of people cohabiting yet not fornicating to prove to you that these two words do not mean the same thing?

Personal examples are not going to change my view. As I posted find me church examples.

 

[truelove_88]

I would have to agree. I do believe that Truelove 88 is the one with the definition difficulty in that she only wants to define it her way - yet not encompass the full definition of the word.

Thanks Orion in really trying hard to convey this.

Thank you for calling me a moron, that’s really charitable.

 

[jrabs]

Thank you for calling me a moron, that’s really charitable.

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.

 

[jrabs]

I believe before you posted you were done with this thread.

Guess I got re-interested.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Personal examples are not going to change my view. As I posted find me church examples.

Truelove, personal examples is what sin or proper behaviour is about. Are you really willing to say that the following are examples fornication and contrary to Church teaching?

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.

 

[epostle]

First off I understand where you are coming from.
Secondly I would never agree with you position because it goes against church teaching. Christ has always condemned co-habitation the act of FORNICATION. Which is what it is.

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