Cooperation in evil of Cohabitation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgeerling
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mgeerling

Guest
I have been asked to help my sister and her daughter move in with her boyfriend this weekend. We already have a strained relationship and I am one of the only positive influences in her life, so I don’t want to cause a bigger rift, but I am worried that helping her move could be cooperating in evil.

Our dad is the one who asked me and he is helping too, but he is not in good physical shape and I don’t want him to do more than he should.

Question: Would helping my sister move be cooperating in her sin of cohabitation?

Thanks!
 
IMHO, this is a form of cooperating with sin. Remember, these are all adults making decisions here. Your sister and your dad are choosing to help of their own free will. While your concern for your dad is valid, he’s a big boy and can decide for himself how far to push himself.

Don’t participate in this nonsense.
 
What if you said something like, I think this is a really bad idea, because people who live together before marriage have a much higher rate of divorce. I would hate to see that happen to you. If you want to hold off on the move, I’ll help you arrange a wedding.

Granted, everything’s packed and organized, so probably no one will change his or her mind. The time to object would have been when the plan was first proposed, but you probably weren’t in on that decision.
So you have to decide whether to help out and cooperate with evil, or not help out and widen the rift between you. You might want to consult a priest.
 
If you feel like you’re cooperating in the evil of cohabitation, I would take that as a sure sign of a well-formed conscience telling you not to do it. Maybe a further riff with your sister is what she needs to set her straight (not that I’m condoning family riffs). Sometimes a person needs to fall to rock bottom before they try to get up.
 
The morality of any knowingly chosen act depends upon three fonts of morality:
  1. intention
    I take it that your intention is not to approve of the sin of pre-marital sex, but to keep a good relationship with your sister in order to be an influence in her life toward what is truly good.
    So your intention is good.
  2. the act itself and its inherent moral object
    The act that you are choosing is assisting your sister and her boyfriend in moving into a new home. Such an act has a good moral object because what you are actually doing is helping someone to have a home to live in. So this act is good.
  3. the circumstances, including consequences
    This is where the idea of cooperation with evil enters the evaluation of the act. The sin that they are committing is not so much living under the same roof, but having pre-marital sex.
Your actions are not essential to the comission of the sin itself (of pre-marital sex), so your act is not formal cooperation. And you do not share their intention; you disapprove of their choice.

Your actions are not essential to the circumstances surrounding the sin of pre-marital sex, since they will move in without your help, and so your act is not immediate material cooperation. This is particularly true because their sin is not living in the same house, but having pre-marital sex.

Your assistance to their moving in together is non-essential to circumstances pertaining to the sin of pre-marital sex, so your actions would be mediate material cooperation (which is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral). If the good done outweighs any harm done, then this mediate material cooperation would be moral. So if you do more good by this act of kindness to your sister, by staying involved in her life to influence her toward what is truly good, than the harm done by assisting them in moving in together, then the act would be moral.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The morality of any knowingly chosen act depends upon three fonts of morality:
  1. intention
    I take it that your intention is not to approve of the sin of pre-marital sex, but to keep a good relationship with your sister in order to be an influence in her life toward what is truly good.
    So your intention is good.
  2. the act itself and its inherent moral object
    The act that you are choosing is assisting your sister and her boyfriend in moving into a new home. Such an act has a good moral object because what you are actually doing is helping someone to have a home to live in. So this act is good.
  3. the circumstances, including consequences
    This is where the idea of cooperation with evil enters the evaluation of the act. The sin that they are committing is not so much living under the same roof, but having pre-marital sex.
Your actions are not essential to the comission of the sin itself (of pre-marital sex), so your act is not formal cooperation. And you do not share their intention; you disapprove of their choice.

Your actions are not essential to the circumstances surrounding the sin of pre-marital sex, since they will move in without your help, and so your act is not immediate material cooperation. This is particularly true because their sin is not living in the same house, but having pre-marital sex.

Your assistance to their moving in together is non-essential to circumstances pertaining to the sin of pre-marital sex, so your actions would be mediate material cooperation (which is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral). If the good done outweighs any harm done, then this mediate material cooperation would be moral. So if you do more good by this act of kindness to your sister, by staying involved in her life to influence her toward what is truly good, than the harm done by assisting them in moving in together, then the act would be moral.
Click to expand...
I think this is a pretty good analysis of the situation. I would add to the discussion that the OP is also concerned in this case about his dad (who will be helping with the move whether he does or not) overexerting himself and causing injury. This makes the case that the good to be obtained from his participation possibly outweighs the bad more persuasive in my opinion
 
mgeerling said:
I have been asked to help my sister and her daughter move in with her boyfriend this weekend. We already have a strained relationship and I am one of the only positive influences in her life, so I don’t want to cause a bigger rift, but I am worried that helping her move could be cooperating in evil.

Our dad is the one who asked me and he is helping too, but he is not in good physical shape and I don’t want him to do more than he should.

Question: Would helping my sister move be cooperating in her sin of cohabitation?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Maybe you can suggest to your dad that he not move them either.

Yes, it is cooperating with sin to help unmarried couples move in together. If they are that intent on living together without being married, they can move their things by themselves.

When in a similar situation a few years ago, my husband refused to help with the move. It caused some riff in the family, but that was smoothed over a later when my husband helped them move apart. Living together worked out badly for that couple. .

Statistics show living together before marriage usually doesn’t work out well for couples. Perhaps your sister will be better helped if you do NOT help her move into a bad situation. When the time comes and the couple is ready to either move apart (or if by chance they eventually marry and move again), then you can help them move.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The morality of any knowingly chosen act depends upon three fonts of morality:
  1. intention
    I take it that your intention is not to approve of the sin of pre-marital sex, but to keep a good relationship with your sister in order to be an influence in her life toward what is truly good.
    So your intention is good.
  2. the act itself and its inherent moral object
    The act that you are choosing is assisting your sister and her boyfriend in moving into a new home. Such an act has a good moral object because what you are actually doing is helping someone to have a home to live in. So this act is good.
  3. the circumstances, including consequences
    This is where the idea of cooperation with evil enters the evaluation of the act. The sin that they are committing is not so much living under the same roof, but having pre-marital sex.
Your actions are not essential to the comission of the sin itself (of pre-marital sex), so your act is not formal cooperation. And you do not share their intention; you disapprove of their choice.

Your actions are not essential to the circumstances surrounding the sin of pre-marital sex, since they will move in without your help, and so your act is not immediate material cooperation. This is particularly true because their sin is not living in the same house, but having pre-marital sex.

Your assistance to their moving in together is non-essential to circumstances pertaining to the sin of pre-marital sex, so your actions would be mediate material cooperation (which is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral). If the good done outweighs any harm done, then this mediate material cooperation would be moral. So if you do more good by this act of kindness to your sister, by staying involved in her life to influence her toward what is truly good, than the harm done by assisting them in moving in together, then the act would be moral.
Click to expand...
Your words sound good on the surface, but dig a little deeper. Two unmarried people of the opposite sex living together presents a “near occassion of sin”. That is not a good living situation.

Point 1 on intention is well taken, as the op does not have a bad intention. However, this assessment of points 2 and 3 is wrong. Living together without marriage is detrimental to society and to the individuals themselves. Not only the premarital sex is wrong, but living together before marriage is wrong.
 
Here is a nice summary of Catholic teaching on formal and material cooperation:

ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

“Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are not essential to the commission of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation.”

The OP’s proposed action is clearly mediate material cooperation, since helping someone move into a house is not essential to their sin of premarital sex. When this participation in circumstances is not essential to the sinful act, then it is justified if:
  1. If there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation (i.e., for the sake of protecting an important good or for avoiding a worse harm); the graver the evil the more serious a reason required for the cooperation;
  2. The importance of the reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent (the distinction between proximate and remote);
  3. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.
Thomas makes a good point that the health risk to the father adds to the proportionately serious reasons for the cooperation. The spiritual well-being of the sister which would result from keeping a good relationship with her is also an important good.

The act of helping a couple move is remote from the actual sin of pre-marital sex, so again the cooperation would be moral.

The danger of scandal is avoided because the OP has already made her opposition to the cohabitation clear.
 
Ron_Conte said:
…The OP’s proposed action is clearly mediate material cooperation, since helping someone move into a house is not essential to their sin of premarital sex. …
The act of helping a couple move is remote from the actual sin of pre-marital sex, so again the cooperation would be moral…
Click to expand...
Again, you only consider pre-marital sex the sin here. Wrong. Two non-related, unmarried persons of the opposite sex co-habitating creates both scandal and a near occassion of sin.
Ron_Conte said:
…3. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.

The danger of scandal is avoided because the OP has already made her opposition to the cohabitation clear.
Click to expand...
Scandal must be avoided. Helping an unmarried couple move in together is scandalous–it gives the impression of approval to anyone who observes the move. (neighbors? children? or do you expect the op to wear a t-shirt announcing his disapproval and mention it to everyone who sees him carrying boxes?) Unmarried couples co-habitating is scandalous–apart from the sin of pre-marital sex. It is simply wrong. It sets a bad example for all who observe their living situation. If it doesn’t appear scandalous to you, that might be because the more people do it, the more “normal” it appears. Yet no matter how common it becomes, it is still wrong.

As I wrote earlier, my family was placed in a similar situation. The couple and my husband’s parents expected my husband and our teenage sons to help them move in together. No way. We made our opinions known and they still kept pushing for the help, and then mentioned how difficult the move was on his father. (Yeah, well he shouldn’t have helped them either.)

Yes, refusing to help with the move on moral grounds made for some bad feelings for the next few months. The situation ultimately resolved. My husband helped his family member move out later–after the couple discovered that living together didn’t work out for them.
 
Did you notice that the AAA apologist has now answered this question?

Betsy
 
None of the opinions given on this question, except my own, goes through each of the three fonts of morality, and each of the types of cooperation, in order to determine the morality of the act.

first font: intention
Her intention is good, to show kindness to her sister and to keep a good relationship with her for her spiritual benefit.

second font: the act and its moral object
The act of helping a couple move into a home is not intrinsically evil. The moral object is an expression of love of neighbor, despite the fact that the neighbor is a sinner

The sin of the couple is not the sin of the person helping them.
Any potential cooperation with the sin of someone else is in the third font.

third font: circumstances
If the good outweighs the bad in the circumstances, then the act is moral. This involves a judgment of the prudential order, so different fathful Catholics may reach a different conclusion, without departing from any particular teaching of the Church on morality. My judgment is that the good outweighs the bad.

Scandal by the person helping her sister is avoided because she made known her opposition to the sin. The sister who cohabitates also commits the sin of scandal, but not the one helping her move in.

I’ve already listed the types of cooperation as they apply to this case in my post above. None of those who disagree with me have explained their position in terms of the three fonts and of the types of cooperation.
 
Ron_Conte said:
None of the opinions given on this question, except my own, goes through each of the three fonts of morality, and each of the types of cooperation, in order to determine the morality of the act…
Click to expand...
Mr. Conte–you seem fixated on using three points, while ignoring the critiques of your analysis on points 2 and 3. If it helps you understand better, I’ll spell out my objections using the three points you sited.
  1. Intent: The intent to help a family member is good. But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We must carefully examine the next point–help a family member do what? Help a family member rob a bank? Not good.
  2. The Act Itself and its Inherent Moral Object:
Moving a tv maybe morally neutral, but, for example, moving a tv as part of a robbery is clearly wrong. Likewise, helping an unmarried couple move their stuff into a “shack up” situation is wrong. The objective of this particular move is to move an unmarried couple together into a morally objectionable situation. Even apart from the sin of sex outside of marriage, an unmarried couple living together is morally wrong.

Also note, this is not just about the sister but* the sister’s daughter*. The intent of moving a girl in with an adult man–who I assume is not her father-- puts the child at increased risk for molestation and abuse. (Not accusing anyone, just making a statement based on child abuse statistics.) Not good.
  1. **Circumstances **
Nothing in the circumstances described lead me to conclude the good outweighs the bad. Quite to opposite: I believe the bad outweighs the good.

Living together creates scandal–for the woman’s child, for the neighbors, for the other members of society. That scandal is not simply avoided by having mention the objections to the sister–because actions speak louder than words. Helping them move in together gives direct help and physical support for their cohabitation, even if one verbally claims not to support it.

The father who plans to help might be injured by all the heavy lifting even if the op did help with the move. That’s all the more reason for the father not to help with this morally objectionable move either.

It may cause some strife in the family–but it will likely only be temporary. In the long run, the op can rest peacefully knowing he/she did not help place his/her sister and niece in a morally compromised situation. As other circumstances arise, the op can help the sister in other ways that do not compromise morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top