Cohabitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjm190
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tjm190

Guest
As much as I hate to further my reputation as a heathen and a trouble maker- I acknowledge that cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex may be a bad idea as it can cause issues with temptation, I have trouble understanding how it could be seen as sinful.
At the moment I’m earnestly seeking information, but I may well launch into debate mode without warning.
 
I have cohabitated many times in my life. I cohabitated with my brothers and sisters growing up - that was not sinful. I cohabitated with a same sex dorm mate in college, nothing happened then either. I even cohabitated for a short time with a platonic female friend - and I can not even recall anything as tempting as a hug happening (I assumed we hugged - it was a common sign of peace used in the church we occasionally attended together).

Now when there was a girlfriend involved - pretty sure I could never pull that one off without some sin happening. Lust is very addictive.
 
Not that one response can be taken as representative of the church’s stance- but you seem to be saying that it would not be sinful in and of itself, just that it may lead to lust.
 
Omyo12 said:
This is an interesting article

uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_
Click to expand...
It is just because of such articles that I never recommend U.S. Catholic magazine to anyone.

The authors present a “modest proposal:” Let’s allow coabitation and pre-marital sexual relations, provided that we precede it with a formal “betrothal” ceremony in church. Since the formal betrothal involves a commitment to future marriage, sexual relations during the betrothal period are not pre-marital, but marital.

I have a modest proposal of my own. Why not just get married first?
 
JimG said:
It is just because of such articles that I never recommend U.S. Catholic magazine to anyone.

The authors present a “modest proposal:” Let’s allow coabitation and pre-marital sexual relations, provided that we precede it with a formal “betrothal” ceremony in church. Since the formal betrothal involves a commitment to future marriage, sexual relations during the betrothal period are not pre-marital, but marital.

I have a modest proposal of my own. Why not just get married first?
Click to expand...
He addressed, and I would be surprised if you denied, that postponing marriage is often advisable. I’m not informed enough on his premarital sex idea to considering adopting his view point, but his reasoning for allowing cohabitation seems sound
 
I’m confused - do you want the viewpoint of Catholics? or do you want the viewpoint of the Catholic Church? If the latter, just look it up in an online catechism. If the former, what’s the point? Some, like you, will be ‘dissident’ Catholics who ignore Church teaching, and some will follow Church teaching and disagree with you. But, you already knew there were some Catholics who follow and others who don’t Church teaching - so again, I can only ask - what’s the point of your question?
 
tjm190 said:
As much as I hate to further my reputation as a heathen and a trouble maker- I acknowledge that cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex may be a bad idea as it can cause issues with temptation, I have trouble understanding how it could be seen as sinful.
At the moment I’m earnestly seeking information, but I may well launch into debate mode without warning.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are asking about what is often called a “proximate occasion” or a “near occasion” of sin. Catholics/people do have a positive obligation to avoid certain types of these. Say the the thing you would be tempted to do would be a mortal/grave sin and say that the likelihood of you being tempted into doing it is substantial and say that the surrounding circumstances that would likely end up leading you into doing it are voluntary, with no compelling/obliging reason that you need to be in those circumstances. This is the type of thing that must be avoided. To deliberately fail to avoid this type of near occasion when you recognize it, that is wrong. The person in question is not taking reasonable steps to live their life well and to avoid sin. Since sins typically harm us and/or our neighbor, simple charity/love often suffices to oblige us to avoid these things.

What represents a near occasion can vary by person.
 
tjm190 said:
He addressed, and I would be surprised if you denied, that postponing marriage is often advisable. I’m not informed enough on his premarital sex idea to considering adopting his view point, but his reasoning for allowing cohabitation seems sound
Click to expand...
I read the article again and the only thing I see with regard to the reasons for postponing marriage is this:

"Today those couples whom we call nuptial cohabitors are beginning their stable, marital, sexual relationship prior to their wedding ceremony. They fully intend to marry when the restrictions—social, economic, educational, and professional—that contemporary society imposes on them are removed. Their nuptial cohabitation is the first step available to them toward a future marriage. "Actually, contemporary society imposes none of these restrictions. They are self-imposed. There is nothing to prevent a cohabiting couple from being a married cohabiting couple. If they intend marriage, there’s no reason not to get married. This is especially true since the authors propose that cohabitation be followed by sexual intercourse and perhaps children, before the wedding. That being the case, they ought to just get married.
 
JimG said:
I read the article again and the only thing I see with regard to the reasons for postponing marriage is this:

"Today those couples whom we call nuptial cohabitors are beginning their stable, marital, sexual relationship prior to their wedding ceremony. They fully intend to marry when the restrictions—social, economic, educational, and professional—that contemporary society imposes on them are removed. Their nuptial cohabitation is the first step available to them toward a future marriage. "Actually, contemporary society imposes none of these restrictions. They are self-imposed. There is nothing to prevent a cohabiting couple from being a married cohabiting couple. If they intend marriage, there’s no reason not to get married. This is especially true since the authors propose that cohabitation be followed by sexual intercourse and perhaps children, before the wedding. That being the case, they ought to just get married.
Click to expand...
Because weddings are free and don’t take any time to plan at all, and it’s really easy to get the family together instantly with little/no notice?
 
tjm190 said:
Because weddings are free and don’t take any time to plan at all, and it’s really easy to get the family together instantly with little/no notice?
Click to expand...
I agree that marriage need not follow instanteously upon engagement. It really is a preparation period, and most parishes require at least 4 months notice. But it need not stretch out for years, as is sometimes the case.

And weddings need not be elaborate or expensive. They are just as valid if they are inexpensive and simple. One of the most long lasting marriages I know of is of a couple who were married in a Las Vegas wedding chapel with minimal preparation. (Obviously, not a Catholic wedding!)

Some people want to wait till they finish college, or graduate school, or something else. But whatever can be done singly can be done married. My dentist married his childhood sweetheart during college; they in effect went through college and dental school as a married couple.

As for cohabitation: in itself it is morally neutral, perhaps it is the most common circumstance in life. We cohabitate with a lot of non-spouses, including brothers, sisters, family, roomates, etc. I just think that cohabitation as a quasi-substitute for marriage is not only a temptation but in some ways a failure of nerve.
 
JimG said:
I agree that marriage need not follow instanteously upon engagement. It really is a preparation period, and most parishes require at least 4 months notice. But it need not stretch out for years, as is sometimes the case.
Click to expand...
You (nor I) can make such a general judgement
And weddings need not be elaborate or expensive. They are just as valid if they are inexpensive and simple. One of the most long lasting marriages I know of is of a couple who were married in a Las Vegas wedding chapel with minimal preparation. (Obviously, not a Catholic wedding!)
Click to expand...
But if a couple desires an elaborate wedding, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Some people want to wait till they finish college, or graduate school, or something else. But whatever can be done singly can be done married. My dentist married his childhood sweetheart during college; they in effect went through college and dental school as a married couple.
Click to expand...
Again, that may not be plausible for everybody.
As for cohabitation: in itself it is morally neutral, perhaps it is the most common circumstance in life. We cohabitate with a lot of non-spouses, including brothers, sisters, family, roomates, etc. I just think that cohabitation as a quasi-substitute for marriage is not only a temptation but in some ways a failure of nerve.
Click to expand...
I’m not a fan for it as a substitute for marriage- but the Church seems to be against cohabitation in the time leading up to marriage.
 
tjm190 said:
You (nor I) can make such a general judgement.
Click to expand...
You’re right; I can’t make an overall judgement applicable to everyone on such a prudential matter. Whenever I do, I can be proven wrong by individual circumstances and conditions. My comments relate only to overall preference.

If a couple wants an expensive wedding, fine. And I’ll be happy to attend and have a good time. My own rule of thumb though, is that the more elaborate the wedding, the shorter the marriage. (Again, not a universal rule.)

As for long engagements, my theory is this: if you’re ready to be engaged, you’re ready for marriage; if you’re ready for marriage, you’re ready for sex. And it’s not a good idea, psychologically and physically speaking, to draw out this process at great length. But again, I can’t make a universal rule for all.

I suppose that the Church is generally opposed to cohabitation in the time leading up to marriage, first because there is a presumption among others of pre-marital sex. And secondly because the keeping of a common household seems too much like mere playing house, leaving the spouses nothing to discover about each other as newlyweds. It takes the “new” out of “newlywed.”

But I’m sure that others have a variety of opinions on that. Even parishes and priests have differing policies as to how to prepare cohabiting couples for marriage.
 
I like what this website has to say about it:

foryourmarriage.org/interior_template.asp?id=20398797

Personally, I do not like the idea of cohabiting with one’s significant other/fiance. It takes a lot of excitement out of getting married. It also sets up one’s marriage up for future marital issues. Not to mention the HUGE temptation to have sexual relations with the other person.

And like in another thread I read, one poster mentioned that cohabiting lessens a person’s freedom to marry. Living with someone could potentially make one feel like they are obligated to get married to that someone. When you are away from the situation, not living in it, you are able to look at it more objectively and make the best decisions.

I have a friend who just moved in with her boyfriend and is just now realizing that he is no good. She could have noticed this before but now that she’s living with him it makes it harder for her to leave. I also have a sister who is having issues with her husband. They lived together several months before the wedding. Their communication could have been much better if they simply focused on marriage preparation prior to the wedding rather than playing “hubby & wifey” before they were even married.
 
This is exactly the reason EVERYONE should live together before marriage! This is when the little things come out in the day to day living. That little thing that drives you to hate the other person (like using the words “hubby & wifey,” argggg. Breaking-up is much less drama, work etc. then divorcing, especially when 1 of every 2 marriages end in divorce. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? At least make sure you really, really, really love that cow!
 
ditch said:
This is exactly the reason EVERYONE should live together before marriage! This is when the little things come out in the day to day living. That little thing that drives you to hate the other person (like using the words “hubby & wifey,” argggg. Breaking-up is much less drama, work etc. then divorcing, especially when 1 of every 2 marriages end in divorce. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? At least make sure you really, really, really love that cow!
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understood what I was saying. These people could have recognized these issues without having to live together. Living together only distracted them from the bigger picture. There’s a reason why those people who live together before they are married are at higher risk for divorce.
 
jenlovesyu said:
I don’t think you understood what I was saying. These people could have recognized these issues without having to live together. Living together only distracted them from the bigger picture. There’s a reason why those people who live together before they are married are at higher risk for divorce.
Click to expand...
I’m not so much interested in the merits as the morality- but it seems that knowing whether or not two people can tolerate each other for extended periods of time is important.

And that is a dishonest use of the statistic- marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm
 
tjm190 said:
I’m not so much interested in the merits as the morality- but it seems that knowing whether or not two people can tolerate each other for extended periods of time is important.

And that is a dishonest use of the statistic- marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm
Click to expand...
Well, aside from cohabitation being an occasion of sin, it could be a cause for scandal. In our society, whether you are having sexual relations with someone or not, people are going to assume you are having sexual relations if you are sharing the same home. You are giving off the appearance of being married when you really aren’t. It could turn other people away from the faith or it could encourage some Catholics to believe it is okay to have premarital relations.

People for several years have been able to have successful marriages without needing to live together prior. I think this whole “let’s have a trial marriage just to be sure” thing came about out of fear and a lack of faith in marriage. If you really love someone you aren’t going to dump em just because you don’t like the way they snore at night or the way they brush their teeth.
 
jenlovesyu said:
Well, aside from cohabitation being an occasion of sin, it could be a cause for scandal. In our society, whether you are having sexual relations with someone or not, people are going to assume you are having sexual relations if you are sharing the same home. You are giving off the appearance of being married when you really aren’t. It could turn other people away from the faith or it could encourage some Catholics to believe it is okay to have premarital relations.

People for several years have been able to have successful marriages without needing to live together prior. I think this whole “let’s have a trial marriage just to be sure” thing came about out of fear and a lack of faith in marriage. If you really love someone you aren’t going to dump em just because you don’t like the way they snore at night or the way they brush their teeth.
Click to expand...
So… you believe it’s sinful because people assume you’re sinning? Is that really a way to live?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top