Help me clarify my doubts on Church view on cohabitation

[vio_dsa]

One of the reasons stated that living together is not permissible by the church, is that it gives an impression of scandalous behavior.
In today’s world even living together with a normal friend of the same sex may get similar reactions. If this teaching existed during the time of Saint Vitalis of Gaza, he would have never become a saint, since he was visiting brothels and preaching the gospel to prostitutes every night and this would surely raised some suspicion.
I would like to know if there are other teachings of the church which justifies this other than the argument based on ‘consider what others will think/ do not lead others to sin’. I also agree that premarital sex or sex outside the bonds of marriage is a sin, but cohabitation without sex cannot be termed as fornication.

 

[dochawk]

I am reminded of the old tale of the priest and the rectory housekeeper.

“Father! Your vacuum cleaner is broken!”

He calmly explained that, “No, my dear. It is not your vacuum, and it is not my vacuum. It is our vacuum.”

A couple of days later, she told him that, “The light on my oven went out.”

“No,” he explained again. “It is not your oven, or my oven.”

She nodded, and went back to work.

A week later, during the bishop’s visit, she ran into the room shrieking, “Father! Father! There’s a mouse under our bed!”



As far as your actual question, there’s a big difference between sharing a one bedroom apartment and a three bedroom house.

hawk

 

[Cruciferi]

I don’t share

 

[1ke]

One of the reasons stated that living together is not permissible by the church, is that it gives an impression of scandalous behavior.

The sin of scandal is much misunderstood. I encourage you to read the Catechism on what
scandal actually is.

In today’s world even living together with a normal friend of the same sex may get similar reactions.

This is not scandal.

Saint Vitalis of Gaza, he would have never become a saint, since he was visiting brothels and preaching the gospel to prostitutes every night and this would surely raised some suspicion.

Again, not scandal.

I would like to know if there are other teachings of the church which justifies this other than the argument based on ‘consider what others will think/ do not lead others to sin’.

“What other people think” is not scandal.

“Leading others to sin” is certainly one part of scandal.

I also agree that premarital sex or sex outside the bonds of marriage is a sin, but cohabitation without sex cannot be termed as fornication.

It can be scandal. It can be a near occasion of sin. Or it can be neither of those things, depending upon the situation.

however, remember when the Church is speaking about cohabitation it is not speaking about a platonic arrangement. It is specifically talking about what used to be termed concubinage or trial marriage— a sexual relationship.

If you are talking about a roommate situation with an opposite sex person that is not cohabitation as it pertains to sins against the sixth commandment. If the roommates have romantic interest, but no active sexual relationship, it is at best imprudent.

 

[TheOldColonel]

The concern over scandal is a sufficient objection. What else need be said?

 

[vio_dsa]

If you are talking about a roommate situation with an opposite sex person that is not cohabitation as it pertains to sins against the sixth commandment. If the roommates have romantic interest, but no active sexual relationship, it is at best imprudent.

Yes that’s exactly my point, the church can be opposed (doesn’t allow) this too because it will give a wrong impression to others - ‘do not lead others to sin by your actions’. This can also be taken as a classic example of ‘do not judge others’.

 

[1ke]

Yes that’s exactly my point, the church can be opposed (doesn’t allow) this too because it will give a wrong impression to others - ‘do not lead others to sin by your actions’.

No, it’s not your point actually. Nor church teaching.

The Church has no teaching about same or opposite sex individuals, related or unrelated, living in the same domicile.

The Church has a teaching about cohabitation-- which means a sexual relationship under the same roof.

Further, “what people think” is not the same thing as the sin of scandal.

 

[runningdude]

cohabitation without sex cannot be termed as fornication.

“Cohabitation” without sex is called being roommates. The church does not prohibit mere roommate arrangements.

“Cohabitation” when used by the church is a technical term meaning “living as though married”. Living with a roommate of the opposite sex may be ill-advised if it leads to temptation, but without sex, the situation is not objectively sinful

 

[TheLittleLady]

There is a HUGE difference between living with your boyfriend and evangelizing to brothels.

 

[dochawk]

You will be tempted to step across boundaries with your partner if you live together.

I had a female roommate for a year and a half in law school.

Trust me, neither of us was ever tempted.

hawk

 

[ConfusedLucy]

These days the odds of fellow parishioners actually knowing you well enough to be aware of your living situation is pretty low. I guess the scandal issue would be more of a thing in small towns.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You will be tempted to step across boundaries with your partner if you live together.

Not necessarily. I can see where a young person would think this, and probably if I’d been living with a guy up through my mid-20s, temptation would have reared its head at some point, even just out of curiosity or boredom or availability.

But as one gets older and/or more involved in other stuff (like the law school dochawk mentioned), roommate situations become less of a curious/ tempting situation and more a situation of somebody who is helping to pay the rent and is somewhere between “person who happens to live here” and “casual acquaintance”. No close relationship, sexual or otherwise, develops.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

But people face all sorts of temptations in life, gambling, drugs, alcohol. I don’t know if it is helpful for anyone to make assumptions.

 

[Kei]

But it was suspicious. There was much suspicion of the saint if he is who I’m thinking of, evangelizing to prostitutes. It had to be looked into.

And there’s a difference between living together with someone you’re attracted to and evangelizing others.

 

[dochawk]

But were you dating? That’s the key issue.

never even tempted to date her

OTOH, a female friend and I were apparently the last persons in school to find out the we had shacked up. Uhh, really? news to us . . .



hawk

 

[twf]

I agree with you 100%… but based on previous threads, some here at CAF would condemn a 20 year old man for having an 80 year old female platonic roommate… sin of scandal and near occasion of sin etc. Utter rubbish.

 

[twf]

When I was young and single, there were a couple occasions where I shared a bed, fully clothed, with a female friend without near occasion of sin. I don’t recommend it. I don’t defend it. But in my case there honestly wasn’t occasion of sin… this was a purely platonic relationship. My point being: every man is not in flames of passion over every woman.

 

[Dhc8_Type]

When I commuted to the east coast 2 pilots and 2flight attendants the four of us shared a 3 bed room home.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

but based on previous threads, some here at CAF would condemn a 20 year old man for having an 80 year old female platonic roommate… sin of scandal and near occasion of sin etc. Utter rubbish.

My impression of such people is that they haven’t been in or around the situation of practical house-sharing or needing crash space for a few nights. If one has actually been in or around these situations, one knows that just having a man and woman in the same space does not necessarily mean that they have any interest in sex with each other.

And being totally honest here, the one year I lived in an “all-girls” dorm, it was not exactly a moral environment. Maybe it looked that way to people’s parents, but the dorm was chock full of very open lesbians doing what very open lesbians do.