Cohabitation Question

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Only Christ saves, but many times He works through us. Who did He send to take the Gospel to all the world?

There may be people who have come to Christ totally on their own, but I don’t know of any; it’s always been a parent, a friend, a coworker…somebody who cared enough to connect with another human being in need of God.

And maybe Christ will work though this person by her withdrawl from certain activities with the person in question.

Why is it that no one can see the benefit of withdrawing from these who are living openly sinful lives? Maybe a person can be awakened to what they do when a good friend no only tells them the Truth but then lives that Truth by distancing themself from it.

The other added benefit in this is that you do not “taint” your own spiritual life. After enough exposure to some things they come to be acceptable and seen as normal.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Only Christ saves, but many times He works through us. Who did He send to take the Gospel to all the world?

There may be people who have come to Christ totally on their own, but I don’t know of any; it’s always been a parent, a friend, a coworker…somebody who cared enough to connect with another human being in need of God.

I specifically said that Christ does work through us. And again, I never advocated complete disconnection from any person.

I do agree with ByzCath. Christ may very well ask us to witness to His truth by not participating in certain activities.

 

[st_ignatius110]

Why do you have to pretend that the shack up situation is actually a marriage in order to act as a friend?

Sorry to be so late in my response! Where did I say this in my post?

 

[mamanicky]

SCANDAL

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

I am assuming they have a sexual relationship.

The funny thing is, by you staying in the home with them, you will most likely discourage them from having sex by your mere presence. (There is nothing more embarrassing than the thought of your houseguest hearing your intimate moments)

I would hope that your friend knows your stance on her life choices, however, your presence is not in any way condoning that.

 

[litllulu]

I am not sure about the moral implications of this, however, If I did not like the man, I would surely ask her if he could stay with his parents so you guys could have some girl time. I would be worried about him walking in on me getting dressed, or walking in the shower, or doing it on purpose. Or you walking in on him doing God forbid, who knows? We know that he has lowered his standards.

 

[sterryfamily]

When Jesus ate in the homes of sinners, was he giving scandal by appearing to approve of their behavior?

Besides the question of their particular sin, He did not dine with them while they were sinning in his presence and give the impression that everything was cool.

 

[setter]

I would hope that your friend knows your stance on her life choices, however, your presence is not in any way condoning that.

How can you be sure of this? Our actions communicate, i.e., “speak”, just as loudly as our words.

 

[litllulu]

In defense of staying, we need to remember we will never stay in a sinless persons house. Yes, I understand that they are living in sin, but using that logic, these people would NEVER get visitors, have electricity, have their neighborhood patrolled, have a phone line to use, a pizza delivered, have a birthday party in thier home, not have heat, or the internet or be sold furniture or anything else for their home. If we can not do anything for a person living together, then anything mentioned above would be condoning also. In that strict definition of actions condoning, not words, then anyone assisting in any of these activites would also be condoning their lifestyle.

 

[setter]

Besides the question of their particular sin, He did not dine with them while they were sinning in his presence and give the impression that everything was cool.

A couple of points: 1) Not all grave sins are committed with the body, 2) Jesus was visiting these sinners in an official capacity, just as if a Catholic priest chose to prudently visit the house of a cohabitating couple with the purpose of evangelizing them to repentance. I do not think that the same can be said of a Catholic laity as in the OP vignette without the risk of sending a mixed message to the couple or those noting her visit to such a gravely sinful living arrangement.

 

[setter]

In defense of staying, we need to remember we will never stay in a sinless persons house. Yes, I understand that they are living in sin, but using that logic, these people would NEVER get visitors, have electricity, have their neighborhood patrolled, have a phone line to use, a pizza delivered, have a birthday party in thier home, not have heat, or the internet or be sold furniture or anything else for their home. If we can not do anything for a person living together, then anything mentioned above would be condoning also. In that strict definition of actions condoning, not words, then anyone assisting in any of these activites would also be condoning their lifestyle.

We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, but not all are actively, if even ignorantly, living in a gravely sinful and scandalous living arrangement. Not everyone has the relationship with this cohabitating unmarried couple that would send a condoning message.

 

[sterryfamily]

I would hope that your friend knows your stance on her life choices, however, your presence is not in any way condoning that.

In some people’s eyes it is. This is the very reason it is the sin of scandal.

 

[lsu]

It’s hard for me to belive that everyone who has posted on this thread has not had prematerial sex.

Just b/c the friend is living with someone does not mean she or he is a bad person. What’s the difference having sex and not living with the male or female or living with someone a having sex.

Lets get real that’s what this thread is all about having prematerial sex.

 

[setter]

It’s hard for me to belive that everyone who has posted on this thread has not had prematerial sex.

Just b/c the friend is living with someone does not mean she or he is a bad person. What’s the difference having sex and not living with the male or female or living with someone a having sex.

Lets get real that’s what this thread is all about having prematerial sex.

Believe it.

BTW – Pray that these folks repent and get right with the Lord, else they risk the stain of mortal sin on their souls …you never know when your number will come up.

 

[gmarie21]

If they were married, baptized Catholics who purposely did not attend mass every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation would you have the same internal moral dilemma?

 

[gmarie21]

Also, what about seminarians who’s parent(s) are living in marriages that are not sacramental for whatever reason, should they no longer go home to visit when they have a break?

 

[setter]

If they were married, baptized Catholics who purposely did not attend mass every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation would you have the same internal moral dilemma?

How does this lead others into sin (scandal) or confirm these folks in their sin?

 

[gmarie21]

How does this lead others into sin (scandal) or confirm these folks in their sin?

Well, they’re baptized Catholics who purposely do not attend mass (which is of grave matter). While many may not see scandal in this, the couple would still be living in a state of grave sin if not confessed and staying over at such a couple’s house could be seen as condoning these bapitized Catholics’ decision to grave sin by not attending mass.

 

[setter]

Also, what about seminarians who’s parent(s) are living in marriages that are not sacramental for whatever reason, should they no longer go home to visit when they have a break?

It may come to that if they are living in sin.

 

[lsu]

Lets say this is a happy unmarried couple who’s life is just wonderful,they don’t party don’t drink there only fault is that they are not married

And we have a couple that is married have kids the wife is an alcholic,the husband stays out all night. The kids are of age and they party every chance they get. But on Sunday morning they go to mass and receive commioun right after communion they go back home a start drinking.

So tell me what is worst living a happy unmarried sober life,

Or living a married life that is full of alachol.

 

[fix]

Lets say this is a happy unmarried couple who’s life is just wonderful,they don’t party don’t drink there only fault is that they are not married

And we have a couple that is married have kids the wife is an alcholic,the husband stays out all night. The kids are of age and they party every chance they get. But on Sunday morning they go to mass and receive commioun right after communion they go back home a start drinking.

So tell me what is worst living a happy unmarried sober life,

Or living a married life that is full of alachol.

Why would either situation be good? Both seem wrong.