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

[thomfra]

Yes it is sinful. There I said it.

Congratulations.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

Thomfra, I’m curious how you get to a “bottom line” when your statements seem to indicate a somewhat relativistic approach to morality. If there is a bottom line (like the one you put forth above) then there must be some objective standard, right?

If there isn’t an objective standard then why preface your statement with the phrase “bottom line”? If you consistently applied your approach to moral decision making you should have said that: “**I (Thomfra) **believe that if *you *believe it is wrong to have sex. . . etc”

Which is all well and good. . . but not that useful.

VC

 

[ghaybyers1]

There is another question in this:
What kind of witness does it bear if I do this?

I’d definitely rather have my girlfriend (or rather, boyfriend) be preturbed that I won’t snuggle with them all night than bear false witness to the people around me. Let’s face it- no one is going to believe that you’re just snuggling!

At the end of the day, that sort of companionship is meant to be reserved for marital relationships. How else would the bond be strong if you’ve spent the night with dozens of other people!?

 

[thomfra]

Thomfra, I’m curious how you get to a “bottom line” when your statements seem to indicate a somewhat relativistic approach to morality. If there is a bottom line (like the one you put forth above) then there must be some objective standard, right?

If there isn’t an objective standard then why preface your statement with the phrase “bottom line”? If you consistently applied your approach to moral decision making you should have said that: “**I (Thomfra) **believe that if *you *believe it is wrong to have sex. . . etc”

Which is all well and good. . . but not that useful.

VC

My bad… I mean (of course) - bottom line (in my most humble opinion).

Relativistic approach to morality. Could you expand?

 

[thomfra]

There is another question in this:
What kind of witness does it bear if I do this?

I’d definitely rather have my girlfriend (or rather, boyfriend) be preturbed that I won’t snuggle with them all night than bear false witness to the people around me. Let’s face it- no one is going to believe that you’re just snuggling!

At the end of the day, that sort of companionship is meant to be reserved for marital relationships. How else would the bond be strong if you’ve spent the night with dozens of other people!?

Again, why will the bond be stronger with the one you love if you have never shared a bed with somebody else. It is something that people say. But there is no proof of this.

 

[rusty20]

Again, why will the bond be stronger with the one you love if you have never shared a bed with somebody else. It is something that people say. But there is no proof of this.

well its the same if you have sex before marriage. you’ve given up something that (according to catholics) should only be given to your spouse. The first time you have sex is special, and you can’t realyl have a first time again. such intimacy should be reserved for marriage. Thus with sleeping with people as well. At least thats the argument.

I agree that putting myself in a situation that could lead to sin is at the very least unwise, and at worst sinful in and of itself. However, the sin of scandal has always been a bit wishy-washy to me. I’m not doing anything wrong. What if people already know I’m not doing anything wrong, is it still sinful? It just seems problematic to me… but i digress

 

[Princess18]

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’m stuck here with you. If “putting yourself in a tempting situation to sin” is a sin then I’d probably better stay home because leaving the house is therefore sinful. I probably ought not to speak, watch TV, or see another human being. Living life itself everyday puts me “near occasion to sin”.

Not everything is motivated by sex. Sometimes it’s comforting just to be near another human being you care about and doing something as simple as sleeping. I don’t see a problem with that. If you can’t get your mind off sex while you’re there, get up and go home. Thus, you have avoided sin and are fine. If you can’t get your mind off sex and you lay there and behave yourself, firm in your resolve to be chaste despite temptation, you still haven’t actually committed a sin.

 

[Navarricano]

I agree that putting myself in a situation that could lead to sin is at the very least unwise, and at worst sinful in and of itself. However, the sin of scandal has always been a bit wishy-washy to me. I’m not doing anything wrong. What if people already know I’m not doing anything wrong, is it still sinful? It just seems problematic to me… but i digress

Rusty, I may be mistaken, but it seems that your (and other folks’) difficulty may be arising from a misunderstanding of the word scandal as it is used in everday conversation and the more limited and very precise meaning of the term in Catholic moral theology. Let’s see if I can help a bit.

The Catholic dictionary at Catholic Reference.net gives the following definition of scandal:

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

Note the underlined part in italics. I’ll refer to it in a minute.

Now, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines scandal as follows:

scan·dal
Pronunciation: \ˈskan-dəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense, from Greek skandalon trap, stumbling block, offense; akin to Latin scandere to climb
Date: 13th century
1 a: discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person b: conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another
2: loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace
3 a: a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it b: a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality
4: malicious or defamatory gossip
5: indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion

Note that part in bold in the Merriam Webster definition coincides with the Catholic definition of the word, but that the rest of the entry involves actions which have public repercussions of some kind. Because this is the common meaning of scandal, when you say that someone is guilty of the sin of scandal, many people automatically understand that to mean that the sin is known to others, that there is public outrage etc. But the meaning of scandal in Catholic moral theology has nothing to do with public knowledge of someone’s actions or with any kind of moral outrage … it may in fact be an action known only to you and the other person involved.

Do you see the problem? Okay, so, sleeping beside your girlfriend in a bed may or may not be sinful in and of itself (the underlined bit in italics above), but it is very likely, or can easily become, an occasion of sin for you, and likewise a sin of scandal for your girlfriend if it creates a temptation for her. It creates a situation in which the temptation to the sin of fornication can arise, and the actual sin occur, more easily. That won’t happen if you both go to your homes at the end of the evening and sleep in your own beds.

The sin of scandal is creating a situation which can induce another person to sin. That’s all.

Does that make it any clearer at all?

 

[rusty20]

Navarricano:

Thanks! That helped a lot. I think I understand it better now.

I can agree with Pincess18 to an extent though. I can lie down on a couch and watch a movie with my girlfriend. Should I not do that as well? Should I not even kiss her with feelings, as that could lead to sex? I’m not sure there is a universal answer for these questions…

 

[ghaybyers1]

Again, why will the bond be stronger with the one you love if you have never shared a bed with somebody else. It is something that people say. But there is no proof of this.

No proof, no. Before my conversion began, however… let me just say that close interpersonal relationships decline in that perfect specialness each time they begin.
Save it for your spouse. It’s not worth finding out the saddening way.

 

[thomfra]

I’m stuck here with you. If “putting yourself in a tempting situation to sin” is a sin then I’d probably better stay home because leaving the house is therefore sinful. I probably ought not to speak, watch TV, or see another human being. Living life itself everyday puts me “near occasion to sin”.

Not everything is motivated by sex. Sometimes it’s comforting just to be near another human being you care about and doing something as simple as sleeping. I don’t see a problem with that. If you can’t get your mind off sex while you’re there, get up and go home. Thus, you have avoided sin and are fine. If you can’t get your mind off sex and you lay there and behave yourself, firm in your resolve to be chaste despite temptation, you still haven’t actually committed a sin.

That’s a good response actually. Very pragmatic! Good one.

 

[Navarricano]

Navarricano:

Thanks! That helped a lot. I think I understand it better now.

I can agree with Pincess18 to an extent though. I can lie down on a couch and watch a movie with my girlfriend. Should I not do that as well? Should I not even kiss her with feelings, as that could lead to sex? I’m not sure there is a universal answer for these questions…

If she is your girlfriend, it’s unlikely you’d be able to kiss her without feelings, even if you wanted to …

By “kissing her with feelings”, I assume you mean the sort of passionate kissing one observes in films and such. Perhaps you are correct and there are no universal answers for these questions. But consider too that there were very good reasons that society once erected so many barriers for around dating and its attendant activities for unmarried men and women. Part of that reason, in Christian societies, was to help the unmarried avoid the occasions of sin which inevitably arise due to the weakness of fallen human nature. Now that those barriers have largely been discarded and are longer in place, we can more freely engage in activities once reserved to married couples, and these activities can easily create occasions of sin and scandal.

Just evaluate your particular situation in the light of your commitment to following Christ and to practicing the virtue of chastity. And do not assume that what is not a problem for you both today will not become one tomorrow. If you find that lying on the couch or kissing your girlfriend begins to be a problem for you or her because it is arousing you or inducing either of you to sexual activity, it needs to be avoided. That’s the best advice I can give.

Oh yeah, and talk to to your girlfriend. Above all, make certain that you and this girl are both on the same page with regard to your Catholic faith, your moral perspective and your commitment to chastity, because that’s important. She needs to be very clear that any change in behavior on your part is not because you don’t love her or that your feelings are changing.

 

[Navarricano]

That’s a good response actually. Very pragmatic! Good one.

Actually, it’s not. It’s an exaggeration and it misses the boat on a huge number of important factors. As I pointed out to Rusty earlier, Catholic moral theology defines the occasions of sin as follows:

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

Sleeping beside your girlfriend is certainly a voluntary occasion of sin, as well as a near occasion. If the temptation to fornication is likely to arise anywhere, it’s likely to arise in that situation. Because that situation is easily avoided, deliberately putting oneself into it is where the problem lies from a moral point of view. Nobody has to sleep in the same bed as a woman he isn’t married to in ordinary circumstances.

Leaving the house, watching TV, speaking to other people, or “seeing another human being” are not automatically occasions of sin in and of themselves, unless you are leaving the house to do something you oughtn’t, watching what you shouldn’t or speaking to somebody you should avoid.

“Living life itself everyday” puts one in occasions of sin, but the vast majority of these occasions are **remote **and involuntary ones and, hence, not a problem from a moral point of view. Those are important distinctions.

 

[thomfra]

Actually, it’s not. It’s an exaggeration and it misses the boat on a huge number of important factors. As I pointed out to Rusty earlier, Catholic moral theology defines the occasions of sin as follows:

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

Sleeping beside your girlfriend is certainly a voluntary occasion of sin, as well as a near occasion. If the temptation to fornication is likely to arise anywhere, it’s likely to arise in that situation. Because that situation is easily avoided, deliberately putting oneself into it is where the problem lies from a moral point of view. Nobody has to sleep in the same bed as a woman he isn’t married to in ordinary circumstances.

Leaving the house, watching TV, speaking to other people, or “seeing another human being” are not automatically occasions of sin in and of themselves, unless you are leaving the house to do something you oughtn’t, watching what you shouldn’t or speaking to somebody you should avoid.

“Living life itself everyday” puts one in occasions of sin, but the vast majority of these occasions are **remote **and involuntary ones and, hence, not a problem from a moral point of view. Those are important distinctions.

Problem is that number 3 could be expanded to just about anything. It is really dependant on the person. You may feel that this is the most likely time for him to sin. But in reality this may not be true. it may be that alcholol consumption would lead to sin, so he avoids that instead. See where I’m coming from?

 

[LilyM]

Actually, it’s not. It’s an exaggeration and it misses the boat on a huge number of important factors. As I pointed out to Rusty earlier, Catholic moral theology defines the occasions of sin as follows:

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

Sleeping beside your girlfriend is certainly a voluntary occasion of sin, as well as a near occasion. If the temptation to fornication is likely to arise anywhere, it’s likely to arise in that situation. Because that situation is easily avoided, deliberately putting oneself into it is where the problem lies from a moral point of view. Nobody has to sleep in the same bed as a woman he isn’t married to in ordinary circumstances.

Leaving the house, watching TV, speaking to other people, or “seeing another human being” are not automatically occasions of sin in and of themselves, unless you are leaving the house to do something you oughtn’t, watching what you shouldn’t or speaking to somebody you should avoid.

“Living life itself everyday” puts one in occasions of sin, but the vast majority of these occasions are **remote **and involuntary ones and, hence, not a problem from a moral point of view. Those are important distinctions.

There are all sorts of factors which need to be considered in such situations.

Difference between voluntary and involuntary, remote and near: if going on the internet is a temptation to me, for example I tend to (but don’t always) look at porn, but on the other hand I NEED to use the internet for study or work, and boot up the internet intending to use ONLY for study or work it that’s an involuntary occasion of sin - I need to use it and don’t intend to look at porn. And a remote occasion - I can sometimes control myself and don’t always end up looking at porn

If I had absolutely no need to use the internet for anything else, and always used it merely for porn, then it would be a voluntary occasion of sin - I can be sure that I’ll fall into the sin if I boot up the internet. And a near occasion - it always leads to me sinning.

 

[Princess18]

Actually, it’s not. It’s an exaggeration and it misses the boat on a huge number of important factors. As I pointed out to Rusty earlier, Catholic moral theology defines the occasions of sin as follows:

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

Sleeping beside your girlfriend is certainly a voluntary occasion of sin, as well as a near occasion. If the temptation to fornication is likely to arise anywhere, it’s likely to arise in that situation. Because that situation is easily avoided, deliberately putting oneself into it is where the problem lies from a moral point of view. Nobody has to sleep in the same bed as a woman he isn’t married to in ordinary circumstances.

Leaving the house, watching TV, speaking to other people, or “seeing another human being” are not automatically occasions of sin in and of themselves, unless you are leaving the house to do something you oughtn’t, watching what you shouldn’t or speaking to somebody you should avoid.

“Living life itself everyday” puts one in occasions of sin, but the vast majority of these occasions are **remote **and involuntary ones and, hence, not a problem from a moral point of view. Those are important distinctions.

I am in no way exaggerating. To not spend time alone with your girlfriend because you might have an opportunity to sin is unrealistic. I should not kiss someone with meaning unless it’s my spouse – that makes me laugh out loud. Seriously?

The tone of a few of you on this thread make passion and desire seem evil and bad, as if it always and only leads to sin. That’s just not true. You can’t live in a box. You can’t shield yourself and those around you from the real world. Temptation is out there … it’s how you deal with it that matters. To say you will never be alone with or deeply kiss someone you care about and then possibly marry them, well, that’s just downright scary. You’re putting sitting on the couch, snuggling and smooching on par with going to a strip club and it’s just not.

You can’t counsel everyone as if they are weak, undiscerning children. Life is not something to be afraid of - it’s a challenge that makes it worth being here. Love, passion, pain, and resisting temptation, that’s what lets us know we’re alive. To sit home and cover our eyes and hope temptation stays away is a cop out.

I apologize if I seem confrontational, I’m not. I’m sitting here with my hands in the air wondering how you can come to these conclusions. Telling people that they are sinning by putting themselves in a position to possibly sin is not charitable in my view. I had teachers like this growing up and I was left feeling sinful and unworthy just by waking up in the morning. If I sin just by being tempted, how am I a good Catholic? Why bother? I left the Church for many years for reasoning like this. I would hate for anyone else to be swayed that way as well.

I kiss my fiance deeply and passionately and did so before we were engaged. I frequently chastely sleep next to him. We’re alone together more than we are around other people. This is real life, it’s what we will have many many years of together, without sex on the brain. We would not be doing ourselves any favors not to learn how to firmly resist temptation together. Our priest assures us we are not sinful in learning and growing together in this fashion.

 

[Navarricano]

I am in no way exaggerating. To not spend time alone with your girlfriend because you might have an opportunity to sin is unrealistic. I should not kiss someone with meaning unless it’s my spouse – that makes me laugh out loud. Seriously?

The tone of a few of you on this thread make passion and desire seem evil and bad, as if it always and only leads to sin. That’s just not true. You can’t live in a box. You can’t shield yourself and those around you from the real world. Temptation is out there … it’s how you deal with it that matters. To say you will never be alone with or deeply kiss someone you care about and then possibly marry them, well, that’s just downright scary. You’re putting sitting on the couch, snuggling and smooching on par with going to a strip club and it’s just not.

You can’t counsel everyone as if they are weak, undiscerning children. **Life is not something to be afraid of **- it’s a challenge that makes it worth being here. Love, passion, pain, and resisting temptation, that’s what lets us know we’re alive. **To sit home and cover our eyes and hope temptation stays away is a cop out. **
I apologize if I seem confrontational, I’m not. I’m sitting here with my hands in the air wondering how you can come to these conclusions. Telling people that they are sinning by putting themselves in a position to possibly sin is not charitable in my view. I had teachers like this growing up and I was left feeling sinful and unworthy just by waking up in the morning. If I sin just by being tempted, how am I a good Catholic? Why bother? I left the Church for many years for reasoning like this. I would hate for anyone else to be swayed that way as well.

My part in this conversation ends here I’m afraid. The highlighted parts above are a few of the reasons why. I said none of these things, nor did I imply them. You are putting words in my mouth and drawing exaggerated conclusions. Yes, you are exaggerating, and you are distorting my posts. Indicate where I said that “sitting on the couch, snuggling and smooching” is “on par with going to a strip club.” Please. You can’t. Those are your conclusions, not my words. Yes, you do seem confrontational and I have no wish to engage in emotional debates.

Temptation is not a sin, but deliberately courting it or putting yourself into the path of temptation that can be avoided is. How can I come to these conclusions? The moral principles I have outlined are not ideas I pulled out of my own head and I do not argue from my own authority because I have none. My posts on the occasions of sin are based upon Our Lord’s words in St. Matthew’s Gospel, the teaching of the Church and fundamental principles in Catholic moral theology. If that displeases you, I am not the one to take it up with.

From St. Matthew 5, 29-30 (Douay Rheims online edition):

29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

29 “Scandalize thee”… That is, if it be a stumblingblock, or occasion of sin to thee. By which we are taught to fly the immediate occasions of sin, though they be as dear to us, or as necessary as a hand or an eye.

I offer the following additional links as well:

An excellent article by Fr. John Hardon, S.J. on Sex and Chastity. It’s long, but worth a patient reading.

Entry on the occasions of sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A brief and simpler article from About.com about the occasions of sin.

God bless!

 

[graceandglory]

Hey all,

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.

Christopher West refers to Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body in TGNASAM. (I like that )

He says that we are created by God in His image. He says that our bodies are a sign, a symbol of God’s love, and calls our bodies a sacrament.

As such, we are always saying something with our bodies. Either we are telling the truth with our bodies, or we are telling a lie.

Marital love is supposed to be free, (freely given, freely received)
total (your whole body)
faithful (forsaking all others)
fruitful (open to participating with God in creating a new life)

Why is she not your wife?
If you’re in college, chances are, she’s going to be somebody else’s wife. Same for you. Both of you are cheating on your future spouses.
What are you saying with your bodies, when you are lying in bed together?
Lying in bed is something that married couples do, it’s the setting for marital love. For married couples, getting into bed with one another is a prelude to the marital embrace.
It sounds like for you sleeping with your gf is kind of like lying to each other with your bodies.
It looks like you’re married, but you’re not.
You aren’t free to sleep with her and pretend to be married.
Either you’re married or you’re not. If you’re not married, then you’re single, and you need to live and act according to your state in life.

 

[Katie1723]

Simple answer to the OP’s question: no

Kathy

 

[thomfra]

I am in no way exaggerating. To not spend time alone with your girlfriend because you might have an opportunity to sin is unrealistic. I should not kiss someone with meaning unless it’s my spouse – that makes me laugh out loud. Seriously?

The tone of a few of you on this thread make passion and desire seem evil and bad, as if it always and only leads to sin. That’s just not true. You can’t live in a box. You can’t shield yourself and those around you from the real world. Temptation is out there … it’s how you deal with it that matters. To say you will never be alone with or deeply kiss someone you care about and then possibly marry them, well, that’s just downright scary. You’re putting sitting on the couch, snuggling and smooching on par with going to a strip club and it’s just not.

You can’t counsel everyone as if they are weak, undiscerning children. Life is not something to be afraid of - it’s a challenge that makes it worth being here. Love, passion, pain, and resisting temptation, that’s what lets us know we’re alive. To sit home and cover our eyes and hope temptation stays away is a cop out.

I apologize if I seem confrontational, I’m not. I’m sitting here with my hands in the air wondering how you can come to these conclusions. Telling people that they are sinning by putting themselves in a position to possibly sin is not charitable in my view. I had teachers like this growing up and I was left feeling sinful and unworthy just by waking up in the morning. If I sin just by being tempted, how am I a good Catholic? Why bother? I left the Church for many years for reasoning like this. I would hate for anyone else to be swayed that way as well.

I kiss my fiance deeply and passionately and did so before we were engaged. I frequently chastely sleep next to him. We’re alone together more than we are around other people. This is real life, it’s what we will have many many years of together, without sex on the brain. We would not be doing ourselves any favors not to learn how to firmly resist temptation together. Our priest assures us we are not sinful in learning and growing together in this fashion.

Another great post.