Cohabitation

[Coder]

There’s temptation visiting the other person’s house alone, so do we need to start encouraging chaperoned dates? There’s temptation when you see each other in bathing suits, so is it a sin to go to the beach with someone to which you are not married? And what about the argument posted above: living literally as roommates. Is that causing temptation and therefore a sin?

Jesus teaches us that a man shall cling to his wife. Why does he say this?

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm
See Matthew 5:29.

 

[FastLearner]

Jesus teaches us that a man shall cling to his wife. Why does he say this?

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm
See Matthew 5:29.

You’re stretching to apply that here. Jesus made the comment about clinging to a wife when discussing divorce, not cohabitation or anything of the sort.

Your reference of Matthew 5:29 assumes that cohabitation causes one to sin. If two people cohabitate but do not fornicate, they are not sinning. Further, if they have no desire to fornicate (and there are people out there with very low “sex drives”), Matthew 5:29 does not apply.

Again, the whole argument against cohabitation is actually against fornication. Claiming that everyone that cohabitates fornicates or has a desire to fornicate is an assumption that goes against the principal of charity.

I could see an argument framed around the position that cohabitation devalues the Sacrament of Marriage. But again, that would be in the case of two people living as married but not married. Two people living as roommates with the intention to marry (or possibly even in marriage prep) would invalidate that argument. Once again, you have to place a condition or circumstance on that cohabitation to make it sinful, the cohabitation itself is not inherently a sin.

 

[Coder]

Like I said before, if they have separate residences, and the man goes to visit the woman at her residence alone, that presents the same temptation.

Yes, it does and it’s the same with visiting at a hotel. A decent Catholic man would pick up his date and drop her off. There would be little time spent alone.

My example of a woman’s non-acceptance of her husband traveling and staying alone for a month with another woman is very clear. There is really nothing to debate about here.

As for your other examples of temptation such as pornography these also must be managed. Just as a decent man does not stay in a house alone with a woman, we can put the pornography on block so we would have to enter a code to see it. Having to enter the code is a barrier just as staying outside the hotel doorway is a barrier. These barriers make the occasion a bit “further” and not “near”. One must make a conscious decision to do A before B. Notice the word venial and convenience. We avoid sin by not keeping having temptation right in front of us so it is easy to perform a sinful act.

Comcast should also consider the sinfulness of tempting with pornography.

 

[Chatter163]

OK, Fast Learner, let’s approach this a different way. In order to do so, I must first clarify one issue, before moving on to others, because I have my doubts. Rest assured that I shall do so.

Do you believe that fornication is a sin?

 

[FastLearner]

OK, Fast Learner, let’s approach this a different way. In order to do so, I must first clarify one issue, before moving on to others, because I have my doubts. Rest assured that I shall do so.

Do you believe that fornication is a sin?

Relations between an unmarried man and woman: yes. That’s well defined.

 

[Chatter163]

Good, we all believe that, at least. Next question: Can you define the following two terms, including their place in Catholic moral theology? Non-technical language is fine.

scandal

near occasion of sin

 

[FastLearner]

near occasion of sin

A person, place or thing that leads to sin.

Your argument: cohabitation leads to fornication. However, I disagree, which where our logic diverges. Think of two situations: 1) Man and woman live with a third, not romantically involved individual, say a parent. Those three cohabitate a one room apartment and are never apart. Does cohabitation lead to temptation of fornication? No. 2) Man and woman live apart. Man comes over woman’s house and the two are alone. Does that lead to temptation of fornication? Yes. So, in fact, the problem isn’t cohabitation, but being alone. By that argument, it is sinful to be alone with a non-married romantic partner.

And in fact, I’ll take it further. There are many individuals with little or no sex drive, who go decades without sex, even when married. For these individuals, cohabitation leads to no temptation at all, thus no occasion to sin.

 

[Coder]

1. Man and woman live apart. Man comes over woman’s house and the two are alone. …By that argument, it is sinful to be alone with a non-married romantic partner.

Yes any situation where the couple could easily fall into sin is to be avoided. There are places where they could be alone but not easily fall into sin, e.g. temporary elevator ride or a ride in the car in the country side (even in this they must use good judgement such as not parking at night in isolated areas and then getting too close etc.)

1. Man and woman live apart. Man comes over woman’s house and the two are alone. Does that lead to temptation of fornication? Yes. So, in fact, the problem isn’t cohabitation, but being alone.

You agree that some cases of being alone are occasions of sin. So living together is especially so.

Returning to the point of the thread, those involved in marriage preparation should be loving but not soft on this sin. A cohabitating couple is not demonstrating the disposition for Catholic marriage in Jesus Christ and generally should not be married until and unless they understand and embrace the meaning of marriage. Not only that but they should be warned that they are in danger of not receiving eternal salvation according to the teaching of Jesus in Scripture and the Church.

 

[Chatter163]

We are not just talking about roommates here; we speaking of people who are romantically involved. You speak of situations where romantically involved couples are apparently living in separate bedrooms, which seems odd, because nearly all couples who are romantically involved and cohabitating share the very same bed. This is not a secret; it is usually widely known. And if you believe that romantically involved couples sharing a bed every night will not lead to fornication, then I do not know which planet you live on.

Moreover, nearly everyone I have ever observed who live together make it clear, either directly or indirectly, that they have sex. That is the social norm. People express surprise when such is not the case. Indeed, a third of all births in this country are now out of wedlock, and most of those are to cohabitating couples. In case you are not sure of this, ask ten couples that you know are romantically involved and share the same house and bed if they are sexually active. They will be surprised that anyone could possibly think otherwise. I have never heard anyone claim to share the same bed and NOT have sex.

 

[FastLearner]

temporary elevator ride or a ride in the car in the country side (even in this must they use good judgement such as not parking at night in isolated areas and then getting too close etc.)

I was actually using that as a case of being absurd: two individuals alone for a non-trivial amount of time is a sin. Wow. You do realize that not everyone wants to have sex all the time, right? There are times when people are romantically involved, alone, and not tempted to have sex.

You agree that some cases of being alone especially living together are occasions of sin.

And you agree that cohabitation is not a sin, but being alone is a sin, correct? If two people cohabitate in an environment where they are never alone, for example, multiple roommates sharing a college apartment, is that a sin?

We are not just talking about roommates here; we speaking of people who are romantically involved. You speak of situations where romantically involved couples are apparently living in separate bedrooms, which seems odd, because nearly all couples who are romantically involved and cohabitating share the very same bed.

So you assume all cohabitating couples are fornicating. I understand that. And I agree that using that assumption, cohabitation would be a sin.

However, think of a situation, even if you believe it is physically impossible, where two people actually do have two separate bedrooms, and do not fornicate or have a desire to fornicate. Let’s say it’s two people living together for financial reasons while going through pre-Cana. In that situation, is cohabitation a sin?

 

[Coder]

However, think of a situation, even if you believe it is physically impossible, where two people actually do have two separate bedrooms, and do not fornicate or have a desire to fornicate. Let’s say it’s two people living together for financial reasons while going through pre-Cana. In that situation, is cohabitation a sin?

Yes, complication, chaos, and sin seem to be cousins. Keep it simple, happy and peaceful. Jesus gives the same principles to all Christians. Have enjoyable times together dating then marry and enjoy your marriage. If finances are an issue, live at home or have a temporary roommate of the same gender (except if SSA of course). Even if there is a financial sacrifice no problem. What a great way to prepare to live frugally in marriage if need be. If a couple has children someone is going to have to work less or at least there will be day care to pay for.

 

[FastLearner]

Your advice is certainly something to consider, but what about two individuals that made a decision based on their private options.

You would tell two individuals that they may not receive communion because they live a complicated life, and complication is “a cousin to sin”?

 

[Chatter163]

Your advice is certainly something to consider, but what about two individuals that made a decision based on their private options.

You would tell two individuals that they may not receive communion because they live a complicated life, and complication is “a cousin to sin”?

Huh???

 

[Coder]

Your advice is certainly something to consider, but what about two individuals that made a decision based on their private options.

You would tell two individuals that they may not receive communion because they live a complicated life, and complication is “a cousin to sin”?

No, if they are living together outside marriage and meet the conditions of knowledge and consent then sin itself is present. Seeking and asessing examples of cohabitation that do not involve sin (objectively) adds complications when time could be better and more enjoyably spent. These complications can influence people to self-decept and say “see there’s an exception, so it’s OK” and they fall into sin. Keep it simple - it is indeed a sin to cohabitate consentually because of the scandal and near occasion of sin or in fact the act itself of having sexual relations outside of marriage. The law is love. A person might not sin at all they steal bread to prevent dying from hunger. You might find an example exception to cohabitation (I haven’t heard one) but stealing and cohabitation are sins so let’s keep it simple.

 

[FastLearner]

You are confusing the point. You have given no examples from the Church or from Scripture or from any source indicating that cohabitation is a sin. Your argument against cohabitation has nothing to do with cohabitation, but rather fornication. Your connection of these two is that you believe that fornication is implicit in cohabitation.

I have argued that fornication is not implicit in cohabitation. As such, cohabitation is not a sin. You rebutted that cohabitation leads to an occasion to sin, but again, this is not a universal argument against cohabitation.

You’re now making a claim that cohabitation creates complication, and therefore this is a sin. I don’t fully understand that argument. Please explain that line of thinking further.

 

[FastLearner]

No, if they are living together outside marriage and meet the conditions of knowledge and consent then sin itself is present. Seeking and asessing examples of cohabitation that do not involve sin (objectively) adds complications when time could be better and more enjoyably spent. These complications can influence people to self-decept and say “see there’s an exception, so it’s OK” and they fall into sin.

So your argument is that because some might have near occasion to sin in that situation, it is inherently sinful for all?

If two people are cohabitating, you would automatically rule that they are in a state of mortal sin and therefore be denied Communion?

 

[EasterJoy]

All of this seems to be ignoring that, unlike the other sacraments, marriage is a right for all of those without impediment, and a Catholic may only marry validly when the marriage is contracted in keeping with the canon law of the Catholic Church. Therefore, a Catholic couple without impediment has a right to marry in the Church. Unless it poses a barrier to free consent, the sin of fornication is not an impediment to marriage, per se.

Also, since the Sacrament of Penance is a sacrament strictly protected by seal, no one may demand evidence of confession before allowing someone to marry. A penitent never has to tell anyone what he or she confessed, and a confessor may not tell, no matter who asks. Even for First Holy Communion, in practical terms the requirement can only be that the Catholic have instruction and an opportunity to confess before receiving Eucharist, because of course a confessor may not disclose it when a supposed penitent wishing to make his or her First Holy Communion refused to confess anything!

The Archdiocese of Portland has published its marriage policies online, pointing out which sections are from canon law and which are the policies of the Archdiocese.

Here are a few pertinent quotes, but the full text (and context) is posted at archdpdx.org/liturgy/marriagepolicy.pdf. It also includes references to the applicable canon law from which the policies were drawn.

[Boldface and bracketed comments, mine, with … to indicate sections omitted: EasterJoy]

All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage; that is, people have the right to marry. Those persons prohibited by law are those who manifest those behaviors or convictions that would constitute grounds for annulment; e.g.
…[reasons which would render a marriage are invalid are enumerated in the text…]…

Archdiocese of Portland:
In addition to the requirements listed above:

1. It is important to honor the right of Catholics to marry in the church. Priests may not add impediments or prohibitions not included in Canon Law.
   a. While it is good to encourage engaged couples to live separately before marriage, they should not be refused the Sacrament on the grounds of their co-habitation.
   b. Couples may be required to register in their parish as part of their preparation for marriage; but they may not be refused the sacrament because of a prior failure to register in their parish.
   c. Couples seeking marriage in the Church should be encouraged to participate in Mass and the sacraments, but they may not be refused marriage in the Church for the reason of not having been active Catholics.
   Marriage Policies 1-3
   …
2. People who live within the physical boundaries of a parish have a right to marry in that church—even if they do not regularly attend that church or are not registered in that parish….
   ….
3. When a priest/deacon refuses to celebrate a couple’s wedding on the basis of behaviors or convictions that could invalidate the marriage, he must advise them that the decision may be appealed to the Archbishop/Tribunal. The priest/deacon must notify the archbishop of his decision in writing.

In other words, priests and deacons of the Archdiocese may not deny marriage to prepared couples who do not suffer canonical impediments to marriage. The Archbishop has explicitly stated that co-habitating couples should not be denied the sacrament of marriage; that this sin is not an impediment, per se. Marriage may only be denied when there is evidence that the nature of the cohabitation arrangement impedes the free consent of one or both of the spouses. It is not a matter of whether they are in a state of grace or not.

This makes total sense, and not just because we can’t have couples co-habitating and continuing to sin because the Church will not allow them to marry. It makes sense because the Church won’t put herself in the position to have to force people to publicly disclose their private sins, nor tell which ones they have and have not confessed.

PS to the thread: I have had three married couples for roommates, both before I was married and after. (My husband and I were long-distance for quite some time, which is very difficult and NOT something I would recommend, for a variety of obvious reasons!) Once, the couple were my landlords, and I rented a room from them. Otherwise, I was a co-renter. Except for the couple that was my senior by about 30 years, I did not socialize with any these couples except rarely, and then only as a couple. We pretty much lead totally separate lives, as roommates often do. The possiblity of having an affair with *any *of the husbands when one of the wives was out of town did not even cross anyone’s mind. The only thing that was not “simple” was that the arrangements were inconvenient in terms of having to be totally modest between the shower and bedroom, but even that was more to avoid embarrassing anybody, rather than to avoid enticing them. The husbands were very respectful, and never leering.

I would not remotely have characterized the arrangements as near occasions of the sin of adultery. I could see situations where that might not be the case, but it is not true that it is always the case. I would hazard, though, that having me around was more like having a mother-in-law or a grown daughter in the house than anything else. I would avoid it, if I could.

 

[Coder]

So your argument is that because some might have near occasion to sin in that situation, it is inherently sinful for all?

No.We are all descendants of Adam and have concupiscence and if anyone is physically able to be married then they cannot claim immunity from temptation. Even the question of whether unmarried cohabitating couples are having relations is scandalous because it can weaken the faith of those who do not cohabitate and wonder if the Church accepts this. Thus a cohabitating couple and those who promote its acceptance could be a factor in someone losing their faith in Jesus and/or falling into sin from bad example. Yet, as Christians our lives should lead people to Jesus not away from Him.

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm
Matthew 18:6

 

[Coder]

All of this seems to be ignoring that, unlike the other sacraments, marriage is a right for all of those without impediment, and a Catholic may only marry validly when the marriage is contracted in keeping with the canon law of the Catholic Church. Therefore, a Catholic couple without impediment has a right to marry in the Church. Unless it poses a barrier to free consent, the sin of fornication is not an impediment to marriage, per se.

This is something I don’t understand. The Eucharist obviously cannot be received in a state of mortal sin. If marriage is different in this regard then why is it?

 

[nodito]

Again, that’s for fornication. Two people, living together, not fornicating. How is that, in itself, a sin? Ignore what you assume is going on. Ignore what is probably going on. How is living in the same house a sin?

I think the issue is that we can’t ignore what people will assume is going on. We ourselves can be charitable in our estimation, thinking, “Oh they must be platonic roommates” but the fact remains that most people who see a romantically involved couple living together assume that they are being sexually active. And this is the very definition of scandal. By living together, the couple is leading others to believe that they are fornicating, even if they aren’t. You may not feel this is fair, but it’s the sad truth of our society and our culture.

As Catholics we have a duty to avoid leading others to sin. Consider how your cohabitation could cause someone else to think, “Oh, it’s not that big a deal for a couple to have sex before marriage. See Joe Catholic over there is living with his girlfriend and he goes to weekly Mass”? You would have become this person’s tempter. And You’d be partly responsible if he decides in turn to sleep with his girlfriend, cohabitate with his girlfriend, or receive communion in a state of mortal sin.

I think that cohabitation can pose a very strong temptation to a couple and should be considered a very real threat. But even if a couple could successfully avoid sexual immorality while living together, they would still be responsible for leading other people to believe that sex before marriage is acceptable and normal for Catholics.

Because it could possibly give rise to the occasion of sin? Like I said before, if they have separate residences, and the man goes to visit the woman at her residence alone, that presents the same temptation. Would they have the same occasion of sin if they lived with a third person that never left them alone? No. So in that case, being isolated together is the occasion of sin, not cohabitation.

I don’t understand how if you believe that being isolated together is an occasion of sin, that you wouldn’t see cohabitation as an even greater occasion of sin. When a couple cohabitates they’re not just visiting each other’s residences for extended periods of time. They’re living together in isolation all the time. They’re seeing each other late at night and early in the morning. They’re running into each other while wearing pajamas or stepping out of the shower. They’re sharing private moments that are normally reserved for married couples. It’s like your visiting isolation temptation only tenfold.

God bless.