Elderly "living together"

[shipwrkd]

I would like to refresh everyone’s memory - see the above. The OP does not say for sure that his father IS going to share the same bedroom, although he seems to imply that is the intention.

OP, what is the plan? Is your dad going to be shacking up with this “lady friend?” Or are they going to be companions, friends, etc.?

Did he bring it up with you, or are you just sounding things out on the forum without him having asked you for your advice or opinion? You can always give your opinion, but it might not do any good in any case.

Just wondering how such a conversation happened. Maybe your dad is making no secret of it.

This is spot on. Anything after a couple pages of posts is just speculation and opinion on matters that may not even be relevant to the OP or this thread. OP needs to clarify the situation…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If they are worried about losing survivor’s benefits they don’t have to have a civil marriage, a religious marriage is perfectly sufficient.

 

[LilyM]

I cannot think of a Church teaching that involves a child correcting a parent.

Rachel stole her father Laban’s false idols, presumably to prevent his worshipping them. So it’s scriptural at least.

And we have a general duty to correct anyone who sins - duty to parents does not trump
any duty owed to God.

 

[catholicanne]

TMI!! TMI!!!

Ewwwwww…

(unsubscribe)

LOL!

I was thinking the same thing…

 

[Cathrien]

Some of old age homes are providing all necessary facilities for elders and all such persons, where they can live with great ease. Homes are being provided at some reasonable prices, along with nursing facility at their will and with complete privacy.

 

[thewanderer]

And yes, I still think that people would still be about it if they were just roommates because they misunderstand scandal.

Yup, scandal doesn’t mean that someone is shocked, it means someone is led to commit a similar sin. Very different meaning.

As for all those claiming that people on this thread are advocating different standards of morality for young and old, thatss not at all true. It is not inherently immoral for people of the opposite gender to live together, whether they are young or old. There are three factors that could make it sinful, but it is not inherently sinful. The three factors that could make it sinful are actually sinning sexually, placing oneself in the near occasion of sin, or causing scandal for undue reason. (Again note that scandal as used here has a very specific meaning, not the shocked “OMG I can’t believe they’re being sinful” meaning people often take it as.

 

[LilyM]

I cannot think of a Church teaching that involves a child correcting a parent.

‘If your brother sins rebuke him’ - no fine print in there about ‘unless he happens to be your parent’. However, there are pragmatic matters to consider, as in any other situation - would the rebuke have the desired effect? Would it possibly harden the sinner even further?

 

[EasterJoy]

‘If your brother sins rebuke him’ - no fine print in there about ‘unless he happens to be your parent’. However, there are pragmatic matters to consider, as in any other situation - would the rebuke have the desired effect? Would it possibly harden the sinner even further?

The pragmatic matter being covered by “do not toss your pearls before swine”. If the only realistic outcome to a correction is strife, there is no reason to go there. There is prudence involved.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

‘If your brother sins rebuke him’ - no fine print in there about ‘unless he happens to be your parent’. However, there are pragmatic matters to consider, as in any other situation - would the rebuke have the desired effect? Would it possibly harden the sinner even further?

I have a feeling brother in this case means peers.

 

[LilyM]

I have a feeling brother in this case means peers.

Why? JP2 said that we laity, who are definitely not the peers of our priests, have not just the right but even the obligation to correct our priests in the event that they are either teaching
blatant error or committing flagrant liturgical abuses (in Redemptionis Sacramentum if memory serves)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Why? JP2 said that we laity, who are definitely not the peers of our priests, have not just the right but even the obligation to correct our priests in the event that they are either teaching
blatant error or committing flagrant liturgical abuses (in Redemptionis Sacramentum if memory serves)

We have an obligation to correct our peers if they are doing something wrong, we have an obligation to correct anyone who is spreading heresy as in the latter case many get hurt.

 

[LilyM]

We have an obligation to correct our peers if they are doing something wrong, we have an obligation to correct anyone who is spreading heresy as in the latter case many get hurt.

And ‘if your brother sins rebuke him’ doesn’t put any sort of obligation upon us? And people cannot be hurt (say by a scandalous example) if your parents sin?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And ‘if your brother sins rebuke him’ doesn’t put any sort of obligation upon us? And people cannot be hurt (say by a scandalous example) if your parents sin?

There is a reason the Inquisition burned those who persisted in teaching heresy, but not those who persisted in living immorally.

 

[LilyM]

There is a reason the Inquisition burned those who persisted in teaching heresy, but not those who persisted in living immorally.

Tell that to Henry VIII - he certainly didn’t behead two of his wives for their religious leanings, he killed them for adultery.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is a reason the Inquisition burned those who persisted in teaching heresy, but not those who persisted in living immorally.

Not a great example, lest we imply that it was OK to attempt to execute all the unrepentant heretics, even though it was not practical to execute all the unrepentant sinners.

 

[EasterJoy]

Tell that to Henry VIII - he certainly didn’t behead two of his wives for their religious leanings, he killed them for adultery.

Again: executing a sinner for a sin you are well-known to have committed yourself was undoubtedly not his most shining moment as “Defender of the Faith.”

He didn’t have them executed for religious reasons. He had them executed for political reasons.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Not a great example, lest we imply that it was OK to attempt to execute all the unrepentant heretics, even though it was not practical to execute all the unrepentant sinners.

There is probably less than a couple thousand between the US and Europe who actually meet the stringent Inquisitorial rules on good candidates for execution. My point is that there is a difference between passively inducing scandal by living sin and actively giving scandal by preaching heresy, especially by a trusted authority like a priest.

Again: executing a sinner for a sin you are well-known to have committed yourself was undoubtedly not his most shining moment as “Defender of the Faith.”

He didn’t have them executed for religious reasons. He had them executed for political reasons.

Dead wives pose no impediment to remarriage. As the old phrase goes “Murder? Maybe. Divorce? Never.”

 

[Cathrien]

Some of old age homes are providing all necessary facilities for elders and all such persons, where they can live with great ease. Homes are being provided at some reasonable prices, along with nursing facility at their will and with complete privacy.

That’s what i think about it, What you think, please give your ideas and recommendations about the topic,
aged care tweed heads