Cohabitation is fornication

[Mary_Henley]

1**.**
to live together as husband and wife, usually without legal or religious sanction.

The above is the first…ergo most accepted understanding.

2.to live together in an intimate relationship.
This is placed second in being the second most accepted.

3.to dwell with another or share the same place, as different species of animals.

This seems to be the one that is causing such an uproar…
If you understand this as encompassing religion and race the problem disappears.

 

[Mary_Henley]

“We have always said that conjugal cohabitation is wrong and against Teaching. This combining all cohabitation as fornication is the goofiest thing I’ve ever seen on here.”

Oh “contraire” my fellow Christian!
The above quote CONDONES conjugal cohabitation…this thread has morphed into a dissection of the finer attributes of the word…

It seems to be the “new linguistic sport” of the modern day poster…
The dictionary (sorry John:shrug: ) gives three separate meanings…so just which meaning are we discussing as fornication…the first one…duh! The second one just may encompass the above mentioned conjugal cohabitation…meaning married couples.

 

[Orionthehunter]

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.

Unintentional use of the word congugal. I meant to say that ocohabitation between non-married people who are haveing sex is fornification and against the teaching of hte church.

 

[mgrfin]

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?

Cohabitation with someone where there is no sexual relationship is not sinful, regardless of whether this person is male, female, brother, sister, or other relative. I don’t find such ‘cohabitation’ sinful.
However, where there is sexual relations involved, and that person is a close relative, it is not just fornication, but incest, which takes it to a higher level of sinfulness.

mgrfin

 

[Tom317]

Cohabitation with someone where there is no sexual relationship is not sinful, regardless of whether this person is male, female, brother, sister, or other relative. I don’t find such ‘cohabitation’ sinful.
However, where there is sexual relations involved, and that person is a close relative, it is not just fornication, but incest, which takes it to a higher level of sinfulness.

mgrfin

Exactly right. That is Church teaching. There is nothing wrong with cohabitation so long as the people are not living as married people, they cannot be sleep together and they cannot be having any sexual contact.

 

[jrabs]

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.

And we have both seen our share of threads…this may well be a cake topper.

 

[Tom317]

And we have both seen our share of threads…this may well be a cake topper.

Count me in on that.

 

[Mary_Henley]

Exactly right. That is Church teaching. There is nothing wrong with cohabitation so long as the people are not living as married people, they cannot be sleep together and they cannot be having any sexual contact.

Please quote the church document that states this.
This is not a church teaching my friend.
This falls under moral conduct.
This entire thread seem hell bent on taking a word from the English language and forcing it into a questionable definition.

The world does not define correct moral behavior…the Church does.
She defines it in Her teachings and admonitions…not based on worldly standards.

Show me a saint or Church Doctor that supports the theory of mixed sexes living together…I am most eager to see.

To take an example of early Christians living in community is not the same as men and women sharing apartments for convenience sake…to compare them is a gross misrepresentation.

I am certain that the early Christians definition of modesty far outstrips today’s understanding of modesty.
In dress…
In behavior…
In choice of entertainment…
In company…

If two Christians …pure beyond reproach…strong in faith and modesty…chose to live together as brother and sister to encourage each other in the faith…maybe, just maybe this would be a wise choice for them.
Fallen human nature remains broken and wounded…the arguments against far outweigh those in favour of living together.
This…according to the definition in the dictionary is not cohabitation…
Cohabitation according to the dictionary is understood to mean two having a sexual relationship…

 

[ElizabethAnne]

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.

I do not think it is unusual for people to assume that two people in a romantic relationship who are living together are also sexually intimate.

And my follow-up sentance was meant to show that it is hard enough in today’s society to explain that your dating relationship does not include sexual intimacy without the added confusion of cohabitation. People cease to “assume” with a couple who is cohabitating and, instead, “know” they are sleeping together.

 

[udoc89]

mirror mirror I agree with you. Can you imagine a situation where the parents died and the oldest child takes care of the rest - that is fornication. What ? That’s a grave sin. It makes no sense.

I know of a case exactly like that. In a town where I used to live, two devoted Catholic parents were killed in a car accident. They had six children, I believe. The two oldest were college age and went home to live with the younger children. Scandalous–hardly.

 

[mgrfin]

I think the problem is that we have to define our terms.
If legally cohabitation means two people living together as husband and wife although not married, then that practice would be sinful.

But when you say ‘living together as brother and sister’ then this wouldn’t be cohabitation, in the legal sense.

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

In today’s world, we have lots of people living together where there is no sexual relationship - we call that having a roommate.

The NYC realestate market would be dead if there were not thousands of these ‘relationships’.

mgrfin

 

[Tom317]

Please quote the church document that states this.
This is not a church teaching my friend.
This falls under moral conduct.
This entire thread seem hell bent on taking a word from the English language and forcing it into a questionable definition.

The world does not define correct moral behavior…the Church does.
She defines it in Her teachings and admonitions…not based on worldly standards.

Show me a saint or Church Doctor that supports the theory of mixed sexes living together…I am most eager to see.

To take an example of early Christians living in community is not the same as men and women sharing apartments for convenience sake…to compare them is a gross misrepresentation.

I am certain that the early Christians definition of modesty far outstrips today’s understanding of modesty.
In dress…
In behavior…
In choice of entertainment…
In company…

If two Christians …pure beyond reproach…strong in faith and modesty…chose to live together as brother and sister to encourage each other in the faith…maybe, just maybe this would be a wise choice for them.
Fallen human nature remains broken and wounded…the arguments against far outweigh those in favour of living together.
This…according to the definition in the dictionary is not cohabitation…
Cohabitation according to the dictionary is understood to mean two having a sexual relationship…

You are your silly SECULAR dictionaries mean nothing. Post them all you want and it will still mean nothing. What matters is what the Church says, not what the secular world says. The only sin the Church formally speakls on regarding people living together is fornication and fornication is sexual activity outside of marriage. We are talking about what constitues sin, not what goes against YOUR personal morals.

 

[Tom317]

I guess all those celibate gay Priests (accepted by the Church and ordained with knowledge) living with male Priests are living in mortal sin even though they are celibate.

 

[Mary_Henley]

You are your silly SECULAR dictionaries mean nothing. Post them all you want and it will still mean nothing. What matters is what the Church says, not what the secular world says. The only sin the Church formally speakls on regarding people living together is fornication and fornication is sexual activity outside of marriage. We are talking about what constitues sin, not what goes against YOUR personal morals.

You know we agree on more than we disagree on…
And as far as you opinion about the dictionary well…
do you know what silly means?
1.weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: *a silly writer. *2.absurd; ridiculous; irrational: *a silly idea. *3.stunned; dazed: *He knocked me silly. *4.Cricket. (of a fielder or the fielder’s playing position) extremely close to the batsman’s wicket: *silly mid off. *5.Archaic. rustic; plain; homely. 6.Archaic. weak; helpless. 7.Obsolete. lowly in rank or state; humble.
This does not describe a book that contains a wealth of information.
As far as the rest of your rantings, well, opinions are like…yes…we all have one

You still did not give me any foundation for your opinions…no quotes, no instances…This is referred to as a weak argument.

 

[Tom317]

You know we agree on more than we disagree on…
And as far as you opinion about the dictionary well…
do you know what silly means?
1.weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: *a silly writer. *2.absurd; ridiculous; irrational: *a silly idea. *3.stunned; dazed: *He knocked me silly. *4.Cricket. (of a fielder or the fielder’s playing position) extremely close to the batsman’s wicket: *silly mid off. *5.Archaic. rustic; plain; homely. 6.Archaic. weak; helpless. 7.Obsolete. lowly in rank or state; humble.
This does not describe a book that contains a wealth of information.
As far as the rest of your rantings, well, opinions are like…yes…we all have one

You still did not give me any foundation for your opinions…no quotes, no instances…This is referred to as a weak argument.

This is my last response to you. I would appreciate it you would return the favor and not respond to me at all, it is pointless for either of us to respond to the other.

 

[Mary_Henley]

This is my last response to you. I would appreciate it you would return the favor and not respond to me at all, it is pointless for either of us to respond to the other.

Dear sir,
When you directly disparage my posts and insinuate that I have not done MY homework…do NOT tell me to ignore your insulting comments. (By the way who died and left you in charge…are you a moderator or simply an instigator?)
Folks who do not have a substantiated reason for disagreeing usually end up throwing stones of criticism and insult. I hope you are above that sort of childishness.

This discussion need not be bitterly hardheaded.
I have my method of posting…it includes direct quotes from sources that substantiate my point of view. The dictionary happens to be one of my sources. I do not believe it is a banned book.

 

[Tom317]

Dear sir,
When you directly disparage my posts and insinuate that I have not done MY homework…do NOT tell me to ignore your insulting comments. (By the way who died and left you in charge…are you a moderator or simply an instigator?)
Folks who do not have a substantiated reason for disagreeing usually end up throwing stones of criticism and insult. I hope you are above that sort of childishness.

This discussion need not be bitterly hardheaded.
I have my method of posting…it includes direct quotes from sources that substantiate my point of view. The dictionary happens to be one of my sources. I do not believe it is a banned book.

I apolgize if my style is harsh, take care.

 

[maria29]

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

I am curious how people who think cohabitation =fornication explain the above qoute…

 

[Mary_Henley]

If you look in the dictionary…the third…ergo the least common use…is that of differing species, religions or races living together in harmony.
The most common meaning, albeit the least understood…, is referenced first…two people living together in an illicit sexual relation.
Sheesh…common everybody!

The dictionary won’t cause hives…but it well may dispel ignorance…note the correct meaning of ignorance. It does NOT mean stupidity…so no ranting and raving over assumed name calling or finger pointing.
The whole issue is as simple as A B C …1 2 3…
There is a primary ( first in common usage) meaning to cohabitate…a sexual relation that is wrong.
THIS IS THE USAGE REFERED TO IN THIS THREAD.
There is a secondary meaning …not so common…probably could be construed as a conjugal cohabitation.
The third and least common is that of the differing species, religions, or races living in harmony.

Nowhere, in the definition that is current, does it mean a simple living arrangement.
What ya’ll keep referring to is know as rooming together, having a roommate…or even boarding together…house sharing, etc…etc…ad nauseum!