Cohabitation

[Sarabande]

To add: Back in college, I attended a catholic conference for college students. The experience, overall, for me was great, especially to be around 300-400 young Catholics like myself. At the time, I was very interested in the Catholic view of sex, intimacy, etc. especially for people of my age. So, I bought a few books sold by a few religious orders, some of the books were by JPII, but some were also by lay Catholics. Most of my books are now stored somewhere in my parents’ house, but I do specifically remember one which spoke about cohabitation without sex and how it could be done. The authors of the book were a married couple who apparently cohabitated prior to marriage, but did not engage in sexual relations.

So, at least as late as the late 90s, there was some sort of promotion of cohabitation sans sex even at these Catholic conferences/retreats. Of course, it was always stressed that not living together was better, but they did discuss the cohabitation thing as well. I’m not sure if that was because they saw that it was happening anyway. Not saying that was right, but trying to figure out what they were thinking in publishing books like that.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Bishop would probably agree with the Priest

I suppose he might, but let us hope he would act according to canon law all the same, and not according to the loose cannon law being advocated by some here.

You may be a Catholic in mortal sin, but if there are no canonical impediments to marrying someone in the Church, you have the right to marry that person in the Church.

You may be a Catholic making certain choices that will increase your chances of divorce, but if there are no canonical impediments to marrying someone in the Church, you have the right to marry that person in the Church.

You may be a Catholic causing a scandal, but if there are no canonical impediments to marrying someone in the Church, you have the right to marry that person in the Church.

You may have a criminal record and everyone except your spouse-to-be who knows you may hate you and wish you would not disclose that you belong to the Church at all, but if there are no canonical impediments to marrying that person in the Church, you have the right to marry that person in the Church. Unless there are grounds for your excommunication, which frees you from subjection to canon law, the Church may not decide you are too much of a sinner to marry in the Church. She cannot make you subject to a law and then deny you the right to observe it. Some of us are in this state of life and some in that, each with its own dignity, but the Church has no second-class members.

**The consent you need is your own free consent and that of your intended spouse. Assuming that your intended marriage satisfies the requirements of canon law, the Church has no right to deny you the sacrament of marriage. It is each couple’s decision, not a decision that belongs to the Church.

But let’s turn the table. A couple is living in mortal sin, because and only because of the sin of fornication. They approach their pastor again and again to allow them to marry in the Church, but he refuses.

If they die in a house fire, would they alone bear the responsibility if they did die in mortal sin? If you refuse to throw someone a line because you believe them fully capable of swimming to shore on their own steam, would you call yourself a life guard? Do you really want to put the priests in the position to deny couples their right to marry, when so doing might perhaps return them to grace?

I really cannot believe how many people would put obstacles between a couple who is habitually fornicating and their desire to marry. Didn’t St. Paul say that it was better to marry than to be on fire? There must be a better reason to throw up obstacles than mere external appearance. Besides: let’s not assume that denying couples their right to marriage in order to not make the Church look bad would have the intended effect! Better to do what is right, and hope that the wise will see that in a good light.

 

[NoWhereMan]

LOL, I doubt it. There’s a few that might, but not many, especially given the circumstances.

We really have know idea what the Clergy thinks of us do we, LOL! THey are people just like us with likes & dislikes. I had some priests friends yrs ago, one day we were out in a department store, it was daytime, all of a sudden the Priest told me Oh I gotta hide, I just saw one of the nosiest people in my parish, I would rather avoid him, & he did. That`s only one instance

 

[PeterMuz]

Here’s the thing…

With and through God, all things are possible. I don’t think anyone here will argue that.

Simply living together is not a sin. And believe it or not, it IS possible to live together, sleeping in the same bed, without having sex. It’s all about the 2 people involved. My dh & I managed it, quite easily, for 4 months. Why? Because waiting until our wedding night for that was something we BOTH wanted, something we both respected each other for, etc. Are we the “exception to the rule”? Sure - I’ll grant you that.

We bought the house about 8 months prior to the wedding, spent 4 months (give or take a bit) fixing it up (memories of the hideous wallpaper still haunt me 9 years later LOL), and then moved in. Sure - we could’ve had just one of us move in; but let’s see…

a) we were both paying for it
b) it put us both in a closer commute to our jobs; we were both working 2 jobs at the time - the house we bought put us both no more than 10 min. from either job as opposed to the 45 min. (sometimes longer) commute we each had prior to that. Our families were relieved when we finally moved in, as they weren’t worried about us driving 45 min. late at night after working 2 jobs and being exhausted.

I’m in no way an advocate at all for living together as just a dating couple. Too much potential for nastiness with splitting of bills, etc. should there be a break up. But for a couple already engaged, who knows their boundaries and their convictions (and each other’s), etc. then I don’t view it as anything big. If people are doing it, just so they have a place where they “won’t get caught”, then that’s wrong as well, IMO.

But to paint the whole cohabitation subject with one broad brush is too much. Nobody knows what is in any person’s heart, nor where they are in their walk with our Lord.

And yes, I’m Catholic (always have been), and no, my dh is not. 8 wonderful years of marriage later, I wouldn’t change a thing. And the whole divorce statistic doesn’t bother me - I tend to ignore statistics. If I didn’t, I’d never get in a car, on a plane, or do a whole horde of other things that there are dismal statistics for.

Don’t forget that you are supposed to avoid the NEAR occasion of sin. Living together, sleeping in the same bed is wrong.

 

[PeterMuz]

We bought the house about 8 months prior to the wedding, spent 4 months (give or take a bit) fixing it up (memories of the hideous wallpaper still haunt me 9 years later LOL), and then moved in. Sure - we could’ve had just one of us move in; but let’s see…

a) we were both paying for it
b) it put us both in a closer commute to our jobs; we were both working 2 jobs at the time - the house we bought put us both no more than 10 min. from either job as opposed to the 45 min. (sometimes longer) commute we each had prior to that. Our families were relieved when we finally moved in, as they weren’t worried about us driving 45 min. late at night after working 2 jobs and being exhausted.

Neither of these two things are legitimate excuses or reasons to live together. I’m sure it is move convenient, I can imagine being that my fiancée are less than 2 months from getting married. It would be much easier if we lived together. But convenience does not justify anything. Things in life are supposed to be hard. If Jesus can die on a cross for me, shouldn’t I be able to offer this up for a few months and forgo the the convenience.

The comment about the “broad brush” is dangerous. People justify all kinds of sin with that argument. But I could see living together if there was another roommate and everyone had their own rooms.

Don’t forget the sin of scandal is a big deal. By others seeing you living together they assume you are sleeping together. You have no idea who has seen that and used your situation as an excuse to sleep with their partner. That puts you in the state of serious sin. I’m not saying this to accuse you, but this is something that way too many people forget.

 

[PeterMuz]

the Church has *no right *to deny you the sacrament of marriage. It is each couple’s decision, not a decision that belongs to the Church.

The Church does have the right to refuse a couple the sacrament of marriage. Just like they are the right to refuse an individual they who is admittedly living in mortal sin the sacrament of communion. Or Someone who confesses their sins but is not sorry. If it was just the “couples decision” then the Church would be forced to have gay marriage or marriage of 40 year old men and a kid, or polygamy. The Church has the right to deny any sacrament when it so chooses.

The state also has the right to deny you a marriage.

 

[ATLCatholic]

I’ve been reading this site for a while, now, but have never felt like I needed to say something until now. Sorry if it’s a little long.

First of all, I think people here are getting a little carried away with trying to be “More Catholic” than others. Some people seem to be overly critical and harsh as a way to try and sound “more hardcore Catholic” and therefore a “better” Catholic (and yes, you can be more in line with Church teachings, but who’s to say that because you’re more in line with teachings in this case, you are in every case?). I think that’s something that really intimidates and scares many people away from learning more about Catholicism. “Who cares about them? Let them go somewhere else” you say? I have a feeling that based on Jesus’ teachings, that would be the side he’d take. If not sinning is a requirement to be a part of the Church, why does Confession exist?

With that said, I think part of the issue many people have is the “broad brush” (as it was described earlier) that is being used. While the common theme today is sexually active people from age 15 until married, that’s not necessarily how everyone acts. Stating that cohabitation is a grounds for automatically denying marriage in the Church seems very harsh without knowing the circumstance. If Hurricane Katrina forced two families to move into one house, and two people in those families are dating, are you now automatically denying that couple a Catholic wedding?

Finally, one thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is how cohabitation affects Priests and Deacons. From my own observation, it seems like they really struggle with the issue, since about half of the couples I’ve seen are cohabiting these days. If the cohabiting couples are denied or if the Priest is too harsh, he runs the risk of scaring away these couples. Personally, I’ve seen a similar incident (which seemed just on the part of the Priest) drive an extended family of 35 to openly and actively hate Catholicism. You might argue “well, these people aren’t being Catholic, so they should be denied sacraments”, but honestly, if every person that made some mistake was “kicked out” of the Church, there’d be no one left. Just consider the number of people on here that “fell away” from the Church and came back, or those who lived in perpetual mortal sin but repented as he or she aged and became wiser.

So it seems like many Priests struggle with, on one hand, not trying to drive away people and instead to encourage curiosity about the Faith, and on the other hand, maintaining the sanctity of the Church and Sacrament. From that perspective, I think it’s really important that people talk individually about their cohabitation with their Priest or Deacon to understand their specific situation and their specific condition for marriage and what should be done to move forward.

 

[mdgspencer]

I was married in the Philippines, and I found, to my surprise, that everyone getting married in the parish had to go to confession before being married there. This thread helps to show why that happened.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Church does have the right to refuse a couple the sacrament of marriage. Just like they are the right to refuse an individual they who is admittedly living in mortal sin the sacrament of communion. Or Someone who confesses their sins but is not sorry. If it was just the “couples decision” then the Church would be forced to have gay marriage or marriage of 40 year old men and a kid, or polygamy. The Church has the right to deny any sacrament when it so chooses.

The state also has the right to deny you a marriage.

As long as the proposed marriage does not violate canon law–which the marriage of same-sex couples or persons who are already married most certainly do!–the Church does not have the right to refuse two Catholics the sacrament of marriage. (The Church does have the duty to delay marriages until it is certain that canon law is satisfied, and under other grave circumstances.)

Fornication or cohabitation prior to marriage are not impediments per se. Now, if there is reason to believe that this situation, under the particular circumstances, probably constitutes a de facto “shotgun marriage”, if one or the other of the spouses thinks that they had no choice but to marry, that would be another situation! In that case, the proposed marriage would not be valid, and the couple would have no right to enter into it.

There are all sorts of other impediments. And of course the Church has the duty to highly encourage that the spouses avail themselves of the sacrament of penance, insist that both have been confirmed (unless gravely inconvenient)…well, there are lots of things required by canon law.

In short, though, the Church does not prevent people who have committed fornication from marrying. Those couples are not denied the right to marry, unless the situation reasonably precludes valid consent or if legal recognition would fail to give the relationship decency.

Think about it: Due to the seal of confession, the Church cannot require people to have certain disqualifying mortal sins confessed and absolved prior to marriage. Either the sin or criminal act in your past is an impediment to this marriage, or it is not.

The Church can require that under most circumstances you be confirmed before you marry, because confirmation is an integral part of your Christian initiation and a matter of public record. Confession, though, is by its nature forbidden to be a matter of public record. Because of that, once an act becomes an impediment, it is always an impediment, because the nature of the seal of confession forbids the Church from forcing you to confess, publicly confirming that you have confessed, or confirming as a matter of Church record that you have been absolved any particular sin.

If you murder your intended spouse’s current spouse, then canon law forbids that you* ever* marry that intended person. It doesn’t matter whether you confess or receive absolution or not, or if the murder victim forgives you from his deathbed. You may not marry your murder victim’s widow or widower.

Due to the weakness of human nature, though, the Church does not believe that those who violate the marriage bed prior to their own marriages either permanently taint their ability for mutual free consent or unduly cause grave scandal to fall on the Church or require her to be complicit in injustice (in the manner that allowing someone to marry his murder victim’s widow obviously would).

Does that make sense?

(PS The state does not have the right to deny marriage to those whose proposed marriages that do not violate state laws regarding marriage…but that is the topic of another thread. This one has to do with marriage in the Church.)

What I don’t get is this: Why would we want the Church to stand in the way of a couple that wants to make a marriage valid when their marriage has already been consumated? If nothing stands in the way of a valid marriage taking place, this marriage should be encouraged!

 

[EasterJoy]

Don’t forget the sin of scandal is a big deal. By others seeing you living together they assume you are sleeping together. You have no idea who has seen that and used your situation as an excuse to sleep with their partner. That puts you in the state of serious sin. I’m not saying this to accuse you, but this is something that way too many people forget.

If the scandal is so great that a decent marriage could not follow it–if you bought the woman you fornicated with as a slave, if you “freed” your intended husband to marry by murdering his first wife, something like that–then a valid marriage cannot take place, and canon law forbids it. The marriage may never validly take place, whether or not you confess your sin in private.

Let’s face it: the scandal is mended when a co-habitating couple finally marries validly. The situation is made better, not worse, since they’ve finally done the right thing by the marriage that so many will have assumed they have already consumated. The scandal was assumptions about what they did before marriage, in violation of what the Church allows, and not in the fact that the Church allowed them to marry.

 

[Sarabande]

Don’t forget the sin of scandal is a big deal. By others seeing you living together they assume you are sleeping together. You have no idea who has seen that and used your situation as an excuse to sleep with their partner. That puts you in the state of serious sin. I’m not saying this to accuse you, but this is something that way too many people forget.

At the same time, today many people still assume you are having sex just because you are together in general. Although I understand the reasoning above, today just dating someone can cause “scandal”. My husband and I did not live with each other, but it was assumed by many that because of our generation, we were sleeping together. I had many relatives who assumed we were having sex, even though we weren’t living together and many times I had my little sister as a chaperone during our courtship. (I took after my mother who had my father’s little sister and brother as their “chaperones” while they dated.) The relatives I love very much teased my parents about it one day and told them that they’d have to be naive to believe we were virgins (we were on our wedding day). It got them so worried and upset that they approached me about it, which upset me not only because some of my family was assuming this, but also because they brought my parents to a point where they felt they could ask me about my sex life - which was no one’s business but ours and God’s.

At our wedding reception, one of my uncles and his son (both of whom are obnoxious people) shook my husband’s hand and thanked him for making me “an honest woman”. It was so uncalled for. At the same time it wasn’t the time or place to make a scene, so we took the higher ground and ignored it.

This is one of the many reasons I do not assume anything about couples, unless it was made known to me by the people themselves. I saw how easily it was assumed of me when we weren’t even living together. It’s very difficult to be a young person today. You sometimes feel like you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.

 

[PeterMuz]

Think about it: Due to the seal of confession, the Church cannot require people to have certain disqualifying mortal sins confessed and absolved prior to marriage. Either the sin or criminal act in your past is an impediment to this marriage, or it is not.

I understand the seal of confession, but in marriage prep the priest asks if you are living together and for each couples address. This is outside of confession. He can refuse to marry the couple while they are living together, because in order to receive the sacrament of marriage(or any other sacrament) you have to be in the state of grace.

Due to the weakness of human nature, though, the Church does not believe that those who violate the marriage bed prior to their own marriages either permanently taint their ability for mutual free consent or unduly cause grave scandal to fall on the Church or require her to be complicit in injustice (in the manner that allowing someone to marry his murder victim’s widow obviously would).

I understand and agree, but the church can require the couple to receive the sacrament of confession prior to marriage. One of the things about confession is that if you are not sorry, you really are not forgiven. How would the couple show they are sorry for the sin of cohabitation, by making it right and living apart until the sacrament…

1622 "Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful.“123 It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.” - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

There are also other questions asked in the ceremony that must have the right answer if the couple is to marry. Such as: have you come here freely? Are you willing to accept children from God?

You also cannot get married in the church with a pre-nuptial agreement.

(PS The state does not have the right to deny marriage to those whose proposed marriages that do not violate state laws regarding marriage…but that is the topic of another thread. This one has to do with marriage in the Church.)

Actually the state does have that right. Marriage is a privilege not a right. Be careful using that argument. If gay marriage ever become legal in the U.S. that is the argument that will be used.

What I don’t get is this: Why would we want the Church to stand in the way of a couple that wants to make a marriage valid when their marriage has already been consumated? If nothing stands in the way of a valid marriage taking place, this marriage should be encouraged!

The sacrament of marriage does not put a couple in the state of grace or right any wrongs. Confession does that. Yes the couple would no longer me committing a sin when they marry, but what about the sin that has already been committed?

 

[SpaceNeedle]

I understand the seal of confession, but in marriage prep the priest asks if you are living together and for each couples address. This is outside of confession. He can refuse to marry the couple while they are living together, because in order to receive the sacrament of marriage(or any other sacrament) you have to be in the state of grace.

Many archdioceses explicity forbid priests to *refuse *the sacrament of marriage to cohabitating couples. The Church wants its people in a state of grace. I think it would be a horrifying cruelty to deny people who want to “make it right” that opportunity.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand the seal of confession, but in marriage prep the priest asks if you are living together and for each couples address. This is outside of confession. He can refuse to marry the couple while they are living together, because in order to receive the sacrament of marriage(or any other sacrament) you have to be in the state of grace.

This is not true. There is nothing in Church law that requires that you be in a state of grace in order to receive the sacrament of marriage. You just have to be Catholic. If you were to marry in a state of mortal sin, that would not invalidate the marriage. The valid marriage of two Catholics, by its nature, is a sacrament.

I understand and agree, but the church can require the couple to receive the sacrament of confession prior to marriage. One of the things about confession is that if you are not sorry, you really are not forgiven. How would the couple show they are sorry for the sin of cohabitation, by making it right and living apart until the sacrament…

1622 "Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful.“123 It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.” - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Church rightly tells couples that it is appropriate for the bride and groom to receive the sacrament of penance before marriage. I would tell them that! But this is a hundred miles away from telling them that they have no right to marry if they don’t.

There are also other questions asked in the ceremony that must have the right answer if the couple is to marry. Such as: have you come here freely? Are you willing to accept children from God?

You also cannot get married in the church with a pre-nuptial agreement.

These questions are inquiring about impediments to marriage. Again: it is not required to be in a state of grace in order to marry. If it were, that would be one of the questions!

Actually the state does have that right. Marriage is a privilege not a right. Be careful using that argument. If gay marriage ever become legal in the U.S. that is the argument that will be used.

The state cannot make a right into a privelege because it is afraid that the wrong people will claim the right.

The state may declare persons ineligible to exercise their rights if the state has just reason to do so. You may not like that this allows gays to argue that there is no just reason they may not marry, but handing powers over to the state that the state should never have is not the answer. It astonishes me how many people who are otherwise conservative in their politics want to do this.

The sacrament of marriage does not put a couple in the state of grace or right any wrongs. Confession does that. Yes the couple would no longer me committing a sin when they marry, but what about the sin that has already been committed?

Of couse they must confess the sin that they’ve already committed. But consumation prior to formal consent is a sin against their marriage. In the absence of other impediments, how would the situation be made better by refusing them to enter into this marriage that they’ve already consumated? It only prolongs the scandal, increases the chance that the sin against the marraige will be repeated, and perhaps increases the chance that children will be brought into the world without the benefit of marriage.

This means that the man may die and all of his possessions become the property of his parents, not his children and their mother. It increases the chance that one spouse may leave the other and take all the possessions which, by justice, should be joint possessions.

Do not get me wrong. If you are saying that it should be strenously preached that couples should not cohabitate prior to marriage, you are preaching to the choir. I am only saying why refusing marriage to co-habitating couples wouldn’t fix the problem.

 

[NHInsider]

I think yes if you are likely to be alone with one of them. Consider the example of two married couples who live in the same house - one in one bedroom and one in the other. Suppose you were the spouse in such a situation and your husband was left alone for with the other married woman while you and and the other married man traveled separately on business for weeks at a time. Would you be comfortable with such a situation? There’s a reason why a married couple has their own separate housing and why we refer to families as a “unit”.

This is less of a temptation and scandal if one’s roommates are the same gender but still not free of problems - bathrooms etc. Keep your life peaceful and simple. Don’t subject yourself to temptation, enjoy dating properly and then if you so decide get married and enjoy married life. So many young people today can enjoy the true beauty and recreation of their youth if they can avoid the complications and darkness. Focus on your goals. e.g. your field of study and what you are working to excel at that you have an interest in. Focus on good enjoyment such as sports, decent movies and theatre, a good dinner and conversation on a date. Does anyone remember dating. Today’s “rebels” are the ones who are dating again and trying to remember what life was like when people actually enjoyed good things in life.

Hope helpful. You sound sincere and I wish you very well.

At many universities there are no single-sex residence halls at all. I recall a stir last year or perhaps the year before because Durham was closing their last all-women’s dorm, and some of their women Muslim students were possibly going to have to leave school. (I found it interesting that is apparently not a problem for male students to live in mixed accommodation).

Also, one of my daughters graduated university in England (I’m guessing from the reference to “flats” this is also the case here) and this mother, at least, found the mixed gender home to be much more family-like than most dormatory or student apartments my other kids have lived in - not at all salacious but very much like renting a house with your siblings. And a great comfort to know that there was a “man in the house” much of the time, as student flats are typically not in the nicest parts of a city.

I think we need to equip our young people to live moral and chaste lives in the world they actually live in, not the one we wish for or recall from fifty years ago.

 

[Coder]

…in the world they actually live in,…

“…Thy kingdom come,…”

 

[Coder]

There is nothing in Church law that requires that you be in a state of grace in order to receive the sacrament of marriage.

This is what I have been seeking to understand. I don’t necessarily dispute this but I don’t understand it. In this thread Marriage has been compared to Confirmation in the regard but as we know this is not the case for the Eucharist so any insight from anyone appreciated. In general (cohabitation aside) I would like to undestand if and why Marriage can be received in state of mortal sin and I pose this as a general theological question.

 

[nodito]

This is what I have been seeking to understand. I don’t necessarily dispute this but I don’t understand it. In this thread Marriage has been compared to Confirmation in the regard but as we know this is not the case for the Eucharist so any insight from anyone appreciated. In general (cohabitation aside) I would like to undestand if and why Marriage can be received in state of mortal sin and I pose this as a general theological question.

Coder, maybe this will help. Couples who receive either the sacrament of matrimony or the sacrament of the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin commit an additional sin, the sin of sacrilige, correct? However, they still receive the actual sacrament, because the sacraments are not dependent on the couple’s being in a state of grace. So, for example, a person who receives communion in a state of mortal sin still receives the Body and Blood of Christ. It is the exact same Body and Blood of Christ that a person in a state of grace receives, because Christ is not dependent on the faith or characteristics of the person receiving Him. It does not benefit him in the same way, and indeed, doing so actually hurts him, but the person who receives in a state of mortal sin has in fact received the very Body of our Lord. Likewise, the couple that receives matrimony in a state of mortal sin receives the exact same sacrament as the couple who weds in a state of grace. By doing so, they commit the sin of sacrilige, but the sacrament itself is received no less by one couple than by the other. And when they confess and are brought in communion with the Church, they receive the graces of that sacrament from that point on, because Christ has instituted the sacrament of marriage such that couples continually receive grace.

 

[ForMary]

To: the post that includes the story of the priest preparing a couple for marriage and instructs the couple (at least I pray he instructed both parties) to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The woman spoke up that she did not think she needed to receive Reconciliatin. This seems a very arrogant response. After all it was she who sought the priest (as part of the couple) for preparation and then behaves as though she can pick and choose which things she wants to participate in with regards to the preparation. I say “right on” to the priest who then walked away from the wedding in which the spirit was not (seemingly) present at least with any respect for the institution of Marriage from the bride-to-be’s point of view.

To: the idea/concept of this thread, my opinion, as a general topic, is that it is absolutely NONE of our business. When we get into these types of righteousness discussions and exclusions we become like the Pharisees that Jesus tried to get through to. Stop the separation!

Teach, remind and then leave it to God; I am not in any position to throw the first, middle, or even last stone in this or any discussion that causes someone to be an outcast from any part of the church that Jesus gave so much to found. I’ll never truly understand the price He paid and without such knowledge, I am not in a position (nor have I been given the authority) to judge.

 

[nodito]

To the idea/concept of this thread, my opinion, as a general topic, is that it is absolutely NONE of our business. When we get into these types of righteousness discussions and exclusions we become like the Pharisees that Jesus tried to get through to. Stop the separation!

ForMary, it wasn’t clear to me what you feel is none of our business. If you’re suggesting that we have no right to judge a particular couple because we don’t know their circumstances or what’s in the heart, I agree with you. But that’s different from starting a topic on the prudence of or scandal caused by the objective act of cohabitation, which is what we’re debating.