Is it ALWAYS wrong to sleep with somebody else (even WITHOUT sex)?

[rusty20]

Hey all,

I have just been pondering this as of late. I am a college student who has slept with a girlfriend many times. At one time we were fooling around, but that has not been the case for many months as I have put a stop to it. Is it wrong to sleep with a girlfriend/boyfriend if you are not having sex? I know there could be a sin of scandal case here, but is the action itself sinful?

I read Christopher West’s T.G.N.A.S.M, and it says that physical interactions between a couple before marriage should represent the love that a couple has for each other. I think that sleeping together without sex does symbolize love, but there is something that makes me feel like it could be wrong outside of marriage.

What is the church’s position on this?

Sorry for the long post

 

[Navarricano]

Rusty, the danger of giving scandal by sleeping in the same bed as your girlfriend is not the biggest problem, though it is a very important one.

The real problem is the grave occasion of sin you are placing yourself and your girlfriend in. Concupiscence (i.e, our fallen nature’s tendency toward sin and our weakness of will) being what it is, why one earth would you put yourselves in such a situation?!

If you are serious about living the virtue of chastity, God will give you the grace, but you have to set the means firmly in place. And don’t kid yourself about being able to always resist temptation. That’s the sin of pride. Deliberately placing oneself and another in an occasion of sin is a sin in and of itself.

 

[rusty20]

So the act itself is NOT sinful, but because it can lead to sin it is problematic. If we assume that a couple can avoid temptation (a big assumption) is there nothing wrong then?

 

[JMBNH]

I don’t think it’s automatically sinful, if you say both fell asleep there not meaning to, or if it was an emergency and there was no other option.

But doing so for no good reason is probably venially sinful because of putting yourself in that position and potentially mortally sinful if done for some kind of arousal (which it sounds like it probably isn’t, but may be, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay)

 

[allhers]

It’s still not okay, pride, assumption, near occasion of sin, scandal, those are all sins still.

 

[rusty20]

OK, thanks! My girlfriend has been asking why I’m not sleeping with her anymore. She says we’re not going to do anything, but I just don’t feel like taking a chance.

Thanks again for clearing things up!

 

[KathleenElsie]

OK, thanks! My girlfriend has been asking why I’m not sleeping with her anymore. She says we’re not going to do anything, but I just don’t feel like taking a chance.

Thanks again for clearing things up!

Good decision making on you part.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Deliberately placing oneself and another in an occasion of sin is a sin in and of itself.

I have heard many say this and I always ask the same question in response and have never gotten a realistic and satifying answer.
What is this sin that you are refernecing? What is it called? What command does it violate? Is there a CCC reference that supports the idea?
Please separate the “oneself” situation from the “another” situation and address them separately.

 

[Navarricano]

Hi CuriousinIL!

I’ll do my best to answer your question clearly, but it is late here and I may not be entirely successful. Let me know, and I’ll have another stab at it in the morning when I’m fresh if necessary.

Let’s start with the definitions that Catholic moral theology traditionally uses to classify occasions of sin and their seriousness. I’ll only hit the most important points in order to keep it simple.

An occasion of sin is an external circumstance which of its own nature or because of human frailty inclines and leads to sin.

There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

Near occasions, through which we always fall;
Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid.

There is always a positive obligation to avoid a voluntary near occasion of sin. The idea here is that we have a positive moral obligation to not only avoid sin, but to avoid the things which lead us to sin or make it likely that we will sin.

Our willingness to do whatever may be necessary to avoid sin and its occasions is, in fact, a necessary condition for receiving absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. A person who willfully remains in a near and voluntary occasion of sin cannot expect forgiveness while he continues in that state. This means that if we do not have this firm amendment of purpose, then the sin we confess is not pardoned and the priest may even withhold absolution if he is aware of its absence.

It stands to reason then that if we are required to avoid the people, situations and things which lead us to sin personally, Christian charity likewise requires us to avoid placing the same occasions of sin in our neighbour’s path. We should not be the cause of another’s fall into sin.

1 And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. 2 It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones. (Luke 17,1-2)

The commandment that it violates? I would venture to say it certainly violates the Great Commandment to love the Lord our God with our whole minds, hearts and souls, and our neighbours as ourselves. It does not demonstrate love of God or of myself to deliberately sin, nor is it love of neighbour to cause another to fall into sin.

Does that help at all? I’m really tired and perhaps I could be clearer in the morning.

 

[briang72]

Navarricano:

Deliberately placing oneself and another in an occasion of sin is a sin in and of itself.

I have heard many say this and I always ask the same question in response and have never gotten a realistic and satifying answer.
What is this sin that you are refernecing? What is it called? What command does it violate? Is there a CCC reference that supports the idea?
Please separate the “oneself” situation from the “another” situation and address them separately.

I believe Navarricano is referring to the sin of scandal. Scandal is described in the Catechism starting at 2284,
Catechism 2284:

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.

…but it may become more clear how this behavior of BF/GF sleeping together is scandalous after reading 2287.
Catechism 2287:

…"“Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” (Lk 17:1.)

That, to me, states quite clearly how placing oneself or another in the occasion of sin is at least a venial sin.

 

[JMBNH]

Deliberately placing oneself and another in an occasion of sin is a sin in and of itself.

From memory the levels are as follows, though I may be slightly out on the specifics so correct me if I’m wrong:

Putting yourself accidentally in an occasion of sin: no sin
Putting yourself knowingly in an occasion of sin for a good reason (e.g. if you’re a doctor and need to look at someone of the opposite sex naked to treat them): no sin
Putting yourself knowingly in an occasion of sin for no good reason: venial sin
Deliberately putting yourself in an occasion of venial sin out of wanting the sin to occur: venial sin
Deliberately putting yourself in an occasion of mortal sin out of wanting the sin to occur: mortal sin

 

[strngrnrth]

OK, I understand that. So how about doing the same out of practical reasons (someone would otherwise be homeless or freeze or some danger would occur) when the two have never done anything sexual? Is that a matter of opinion or is it a question of scandal? Does that depend on how many people would know or what?

 

[KathleenElsie]

OK, I understand that. So how about doing the same out of practical reasons (someone would otherwise be homeless or freeze or some danger would occur) when the two have never done anything sexual? Is that a matter of opinion or is it a question of scandal? Does that depend on how many people would know or what?

What if another person not in need then thought this was ok since others were doing so? Look at society in 2008 and see your answer. It is not simple is it? If you are an older brother or sister how would you explain this to your younger siblings. If you decide to “do your own thing” and set a poor moral example to others are you not saying “perception” does not count. If I were to curse and then the children were to curse am I not responsible for their poor language? We are our brothers keepers in more then one way. Actions have always been the most negative and positive ways to influence others…

 

[CuriousInIL]

Putting yourself knowingly in an occasion of sin for no good reason: venial sin
Deliberately putting yourself in an occasion of venial sin out of wanting the sin to occur: venial sin
Deliberately putting yourself in an occasion of mortal sin out of wanting the sin to occur: mortal sin

But, what’s the sin, what’s the sin, what’s the sin? That is, what is it called and what command does it violate?

I ask because, logically, it seems to me that if one is in the occasion of sin, and then avoids the sin, there is no sin. But these answers say that there is still another sin that still happened.

 

[rusty20]

But, what’s the sin, what’s the sin, what’s the sin? That is, what is it called and what command does it violate?

I ask because, logically, it seems to me that if one is in the occasion of sin, and then avoids the sin, there is no sin. But these answers say that there is still another sin that still happened.

I think the sin is that of flirting with the devil, although I’m not sure of a better term for that. It’s like shooting a gun blindly and hoping you don’t hit one of the three people around you. This is equally problematic. And yes, i know that’s a bad example…

 

[Claire_from_DE]

But, what’s the sin, what’s the sin, what’s the sin? That is, what is it called and what command does it violate?

I ask because, logically, it seems to me that if one is in the occasion of sin, and then avoids the sin, there is no sin. But these answers say that there is still another sin that still happened.

Could it be called a sin against the virtue of prudence? Or the sin of presumption? Or pride?

It’s not always wrong to sleep with somebody. Charity comes first. So if it were necessary to keep a person from freezing it would be worth the risk. If someone would be homeless, you could give them your bed and you could wrap up in a blanket on the floor. etc.

But if you were doing this with someone to whom you were attracted, you would be risking breaking your relationship with God or leading that person into sin which would not be prudent or wise. What good would justify that risk?

 

[rusty20]

Could it be called a sin against the virtue of prudence? Or the sin of presumption? Or pride?

It’s not always wrong to sleep with somebody. Charity comes first. So if it were necessary to keep a person from freezing it would be worth the risk. If someone would be homeless, you could give them your bed and you could wrap up in a blanket on the floor. etc.

But if you were doing this with someone to whom you were attracted, you would be risking breaking your relationship with God or leading that person into sin which would not be prudent or wise. What good would justify that risk?

Perhaps I should make it clear what I was asking about originally:

This should be a discussion about two people in a non-Marital relationship.

clearly, there may be instances where just sleeping together to help the sick could be ‘good’. But I’m asking if it is always sinful for a dating couple to sleep together…

 

[Navarricano]

I believe Navarricano is referring to the sin of scandal. Scandal is described in the Catechism starting at 2284.

That’s right, that’s the sin. It’s there in the passage from St. Luke’s Gospel that I quoted, I just didn’t spell it out clearly enough at the beginning of my post. Sorry!! It was late after a long first day of the Sanfermines here and I was tired. Thanks, briang!

But, what’s the sin, what’s the sin, what’s the sin? That is, what is it called and what command does it violate?

The sin is the sin of scandal. It’s not *directly *addressed addressed by one of the Ten Commandments, if that’s what you mean, but Christ warned of the seriousness of the sin clearly in Luke 17, 1-2 and Matthew 18, 6:

6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. 8 And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

St. Paul describes the sin in a particular situation regarding the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, 10-13:

10 For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols? 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died? 12 Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.

Nevertheless, depending on the gravity of the scandal caused, I believe it could be a sin against the Fifth Commandment as well. That commandement not only forbids us to murder or cause harm to the bodily life of another, but requires us to look after their physical and spiritual well being too.

 

[thomfra]

This is amazing… eveybody on this post scratching their heads… Trying *desperately *to find a way for this guy to be sinning.

Bottom line: If **you **believe it is wrong to have sex before marriage, and **you **have no intention of doing so. Then sleeping with the poor girl is fine.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Perhaps I should make it clear what I was asking about originally:

This should be a discussion about two people in a non-Marital relationship.

clearly, there may be instances where just sleeping together to help the sick could be ‘good’. But I’m asking if it is always sinful for a dating couple to sleep together…

Yes it is sinful. There I said it.