Is this cohabitation?

[Alterum]

Greetings!

I live in an apartment with my brother (and another housemate). I don’t have a room; I sleep in the living room on a couch.

My girlfriend was considering coming here next year. She would take another room upstairs adjacent to my brother. I would continue to sleep in the living room. The main reason for doing this would be to save a significant amount of money. We realized that this could give scandal and could be viewed as cohabitation, even though people would know that we don’t share a room, that the apartment isn’t ours, and that we share it with (at least) my brother.

So, would that setup be inappropriate?

If so, would it be appropriate for her to stay with my brother if I slept elsewhere? (I haven’t actually had any real housing for years and just need a place to store some stuff.)

Thanks!

 

[Catholic1954]

How long do you REALLY think that you will stay on the couch and she will stay in her room? Don’t even go there; if she wants to move to your city fine, but let her save up enough money first to rent her own place, or maybe you can find some female roommate canidates, so she can share the cost of living for a while.

 

[Rascalking]

I have to be honest, this whole setup strikes me as sort of weird.

Yes, it’s probably viewed as cohabitation and giving scandal.

Having said that, the problem with “scandalous” behavior is that people will misread things all the time. I have a pregnant woman visit me all the time. She even spent the night. It was my best friend who was going through a terrible divorce at the time, but I’m sure that people, without knowing the details, would think something else. I didn’t care what people thought of it-it’s none of their buisness anyway.

 

[po18guy]

This arrangement may be financially sound, but morally rocky. In addition to causing scandal, it would very likely be a near occasion of sin for you. Even if the female tenant was not your girlfriend, it would be a morally dangerous proposition. There is another way, if some brainstorming is used to solve this dilemma.

 

[wild_thing]

Yes, it would be cohabitation. How’s that for direct?

Seriously, figure out a different arrangement for your girlfriend- for your sake and her’s.

 

[SonCatcher]

Strange that you aren’t already in that room if it’s available. Or is it being rented out to someone else who has stated an intention of moving?

Your GF should be able to find a room to rent under similar conditions as your shared apartment (i.e. she would be staying in an all-female residence). Assuming you find someone else (male) to sublet your available room, the costs and savings would wash.

 

[Alterum]

Some of you seem to assume that I have other motives for considering this setup. I don’t.

It seems clear from the responses so far (“how long will you really stay on the couch?”) that this would be scandalous. To answer the other (thought seemingly irrelevant) questions: we have another housemate renting the room she would take right now. I wouldn’t occupy it because as long as I stay on the couch, thanks to the generosity of my brother, I won’t have to pay rent (she would pay rent). There are other places (couches / floors) on which I can sleep, which is why I was wondering whether it would be inappropriate to sleep in a different building and let her take the room when our other housemate moves out. What do you all think of that?

It was also suggested that it should be easy enough for her to find another place to rent here, implying that I have no outstanding reason for considering this option. Her finding someplace else to stay would complicate things for other reasons which are, again, entirely irrelevant to my questions.

 

[belorg]

Some of you seem to assume that I have other motives for considering this setup. I don’t.

If the motives for this setup are what you say they are, and I have no reason to doubt this, then no, this is not cohabitation.

And if this is, as some would say ‘a near occasion to sin’ and nevertheless you don’t ‘sin’, then that would be far more admirable than you not sinning because you have no near occasion.
Or is it considered a virtue when the only reason why someone doesn’t sin is the fact that he is chained somewhere and unable to move?

BTW, I am an atheist but I can assure you that, even if I would find myself in the same bed with an attractive naked woman, I would not ‘sin’ because I won’t cheat on my wife.
Some of the posters around here seem to have very odd moral standards

 

[SonCatcher]

It was also suggested that it should be easy enough for her to find another place to rent here, implying that I have no outstanding reason for considering this option. Her finding someplace else to stay would complicate things for other reasons which are, again, entirely irrelevant to my questions.

Where you see irrelevance, others see pertinent information. The majority of responses have been from the Catholic viewpoint, which is what you asked for.

Allow me to clarify my suggestion. She doesn’t necessarily have to do much work to find a room for herself to rent. You are the one who is familiar with your area, after all. When I relocated to be near my then-girlfriend, she did most of the research to help me find a room. She was, after all, familiar with the local notices, safe areas, etc.

What a non-Catholic who responded calls “odd moral standards,” we in the Catholic faith call “avoidance of scandal.” Here is why it is important:

Let’s say Person ‘A’ becomes aware of your living arrangements. That is, whether ‘A’ is informed or not of your being on the couch, ‘A’ becomes aware that you and she share the same address and that you profess to be Catholic. ‘A’ becomes somehow impressed that this is an acceptible living arrangement. You have become 'A’s role model. This is true whether you want the job or not. Some time later, ‘A’ and his girlfriend are confronted with a similar housing debacle you currently face. Following your example, ‘A’ convinces his girlfriend they should share an apartment. Unfortunately, not all people contain your professed fortitude. Should ‘A’ later commit fornication, he bears that sin. You are not free of sin from his failure, however. Since your example was the one he followed, you would bear the sin of Scandal (again, this is true whether you accept being a role model or not and even if you are ignorant of that fact).

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 17:1-2[/BIBLEDRB]
The NAB renders the same quote:
He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur.
It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

 

[thequeen]

Greetings!

I live in an apartment with my brother (and another housemate). I don’t have a room; I sleep in the living room on a couch.

My girlfriend was considering coming here next year. She would take another room upstairs adjacent to my brother. I would continue to sleep in the living room. The main reason for doing this would be to save a significant amount of money. We realized that this could give scandal and could be viewed as cohabitation, even though people would know that we don’t share a room, that the apartment isn’t ours, and that we share it with (at least) my brother.

So, would that setup be inappropriate?

If so, would it be appropriate for her to stay with my brother if I slept elsewhere? (I haven’t actually had any real housing for years and just need a place to store some stuff.)

Thanks!

Even from what you describe you know that there is no sexual activity going on between you but the outside world does not know that so you can bring scandal just by what people on the outside are thinking so please try to come up with some other arrangements.

 

[SonCatcher]

If so, would it be appropriate for her to stay with my brother if I slept elsewhere? (I haven’t actually had any real housing for years and just need a place to store some stuff.)

Thanks!

BTW, the same problem would still exist if you stayed elsewhere and she stayed with your brother. This kind of scandal is more dependent upon the fact of unrelated opposite-sex persons living under the same roof than it is on whether they are actually in a relationship with one another.

 

[belorg]

What a non-Catholic who responded calls “odd moral standards,” we in the Catholic faith call “avoidance of scandal.” Here is why it is important:

Avoidance of scandal is what leads to hypocrisy.

Let’s say Person ‘A’ becomes aware of your living arrangements. That is, whether ‘A’ is informed or not of your being on the couch, ‘A’ becomes aware that you and she share the same address and that you profess to be Catholic. ‘A’ becomes somehow impressed that this is an acceptible living arrangement.

Which it is, even under catholic morality.

You have become 'A’s role model. This is true whether you want the job or not. Some time later, ‘A’ and his girlfriend are confronted with a similar housing debacle you currently face. Following your example, ‘A’ convinces his girlfriend they should share an apartment.

Which is still acceptable under catholic morality.

Unfortunately, not all people contain your professed fortitude. Should ‘A’ later commit fornication, he bears that sin.

You are not free of sin from his failure, however. Since your example was the one he followed, you would bear the sin of Scandal (again, this is true whether you accept being a role model or not and even if you are ignorant of that fact).

No, Alterum, he didn’t follow your example because you did not commit fornication. If he is a catholic and holds to catholic morality, he should completely follow your example and be completely informed about what your example entails and what it doesn’t.
If these living arrangements are good for you, then that’s entirely your own choice and you are free to make it. You are free to follow your own choices, don’t let anybody talk you into a guilt-feeling. You are not guilty of anything here.

 

[SonCatcher]

Avoidance of scandal is what leads to hypocrisy.

While scandal and hypocrisy may occur together, they are decidedly different things.

Scandal can occur whether the one who commits scandal sins or not because there is the appearance of either sin or the near occasion of sin. Hypocrisy occurs because the hypocrite sins while creating an appearance of innocence.

Which it is, even under catholic morality.
Which is still acceptable under catholic morality.

Please, provide evidence from Catholic sources for your claims. My response was not unique. Every other Catholic respondent responded in agreement that cohabitation is morally unacceptable.

No, Alterum, he didn’t follow your example because you did not commit fornication. If he is a catholic and holds to catholic morality, he should completely follow your example and be completely informed about what your example entails and what it doesn’t.
If these living arrangements are good for you, then that’s entirely your own choice and you are free to make it. You are free to follow your own choices, don’t let anybody talk you into a guilt-feeling. You are not guilty of anything here.

The example followed was not fornication but cohabitation. Since cohabitation presents the near occasion to the sin of fornication, any person who supports cohabitation of unmarried couples commits scandal because they have (even indirectly) caused someone else to fornicate.

The words of Christ I previously cited stand as testimony.

 

[belorg]

Every other Catholic respondent responded in agreement that cohabitation is morally unacceptable.

Alterum isn’t cohabitating and is not planning to do so, so what he is doing or planning to do is by no means moraaly unacceptable.

The example followed was not fornication but cohabitation.

And Alterum is not planning to cohabitate.

Since cohabitation presents the near occasion to the sin of fornication, any person who supports cohabitation of unmarried couples commits scandal because they have (even indirectly) caused someone else to fornicate.

They do not cause somebody else to fornicate.
If the ‘somebody else’ chooses to fornicate, that is entirely his or her responsibility.
If two people are unable to live under the same roof without fornicating, and they think fornicating is wrong, they should not live under the same roof. But that does not mean that if somebody else who is able to withstand the temptation, chooses for whatever reason to live under the same roof with his girlfriend has anything to feel guilty about.

If we follow your logic, it would be wrong for a Catholic priest to be alone in church with altar boys, just because some priest somewhere turned out to be a pedophile.

 

[Gift_from_God]

It’s cohabitation, but not sex

 

[SonCatcher]

your obstinance is uncanny

And Alterum is not planning to cohabitate.

Of course he is (or was) planning to cohabit. Didn’t you see the opening post?

 

[SonCatcher]

It’s cohabitation, but not sex

I never asserted otherwise in regards to the OP. However, the peril of scandal remains, as described in post #9.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Greetings!

I live in an apartment with my brother (and another housemate). I don’t have a room; I sleep in the living room on a couch.

My girlfriend was considering coming here next year. She would take another room upstairs adjacent to my brother. I would continue to sleep in the living room. The main reason for doing this would be to save a significant amount of money. We realized that this could give scandal and could be viewed as cohabitation, even though people would know that we don’t share a room, that the apartment isn’t ours, and that we share it with (at least) my brother.

So, would that setup be inappropriate?

If so, would it be appropriate for her to stay with my brother if I slept elsewhere? (I haven’t actually had any real housing for years and just need a place to store some stuff.)

Thanks!

Some of you seem to assume that I have other motives for considering this setup. I don’t.

It seems clear from the responses so far (“how long will you really stay on the couch?”) that this would be scandalous. To answer the other (thought seemingly irrelevant) questions: we have another housemate renting the room she would take right now. I wouldn’t occupy it because as long as I stay on the couch, thanks to the generosity of my brother, I won’t have to pay rent (she would pay rent). There are other places (couches / floors) on which I can sleep, which is why I was wondering whether it would be inappropriate to sleep in a different building and let her take the room when our other housemate moves out. What do you all think of that?

It was also suggested that it should be easy enough for her to find another place to rent here, implying that I have no outstanding reason for considering this option. Her finding someplace else to stay would complicate things for other reasons which are, again, entirely irrelevant to my questions.

• The movement from dating to preparing meals together, to sleeping together, to staying over more often to eventual cohabitation is more of a developmental process rather than a conscious decision.*

The above is the problem with innocent intentions. One is best to not tempt sin or provide good conditions for possible grave violations. None of us are perfect and all of us benefit by not dancing with danger.

Alterum isn’t cohabitating and is not planning to do so, so what he is doing or planning to do is by no means moraaly unacceptable.

Theory and reality are two different things. He may not be technically cohabitating nor plan on doing so, however if he goes through with the plan, he makes a huge risk in the situation changing.

They do not cause somebody else to fornicate.
If the ‘somebody else’ chooses to fornicate, that is entirely his or her responsibility.
If two people are unable to live under the same roof without fornicating, and they think fornicating is wrong, they should not live under the same roof. But that does not mean that if somebody else who is able to withstand the temptation, chooses for whatever reason to live under the same roof with his girlfriend has anything to feel guilty about.

If we follow your logic, it would be wrong for a Catholic priest to be alone in church with altar boys, just because some priest somewhere turned out to be a pedophile.

Analogy does not work as altar boys and the priest do not live in the sacristy unlike the two hypothetical people living together without sinning. The pre-conditions are distinctly different.

What I think you are arguing is that “near occasion of sin” is different for everyone. I would agree to that. However that does not give us license to test these different boundaries, especially when the main reason for doing so is for financial reasons and especially when the reasonable possible fallout is grave. So we are betting a mortal sin (fornication) and damage to a future relationship to possibly win financial gain? Would you bet a relationship to win money?

 

[surfinpure]

Yes, it’s scandalous, and yes, it’s a near occasion of sin. As one of many who’s been there, I can say that at the end of an evening together you need a healthy distance from each other to cool off. *A flight of stairs does not constitute a healthy distance. *

Proud of you for being conscientious enough to care, though! Bravo!

 

[belorg]

• The movement from dating to preparing meals together, to sleeping together, to staying over more often to eventual cohabitation is more of a developmental process rather than a conscious decision*.

If it’s not a conscious decision, it’s not a mortal sin.

The above is the problem with innocent intentions. One is best to not tempt sin or provide good conditions for possible grave violations. None of us are perfect and all of us benefit by not dancing with danger.

That’s the point. Just because you and some other posters here are too weak to resist the temptation does not mean the same holds for Alterum. He should decide for himself what is the best.

Theory and reality are two different things. He may not be technically cohabitating nor plan on doing so, however if he goes through with the plan, he makes a huge risk in the situation changing.

Not if his will is strong enough.

Analogy does not work as altar boys and the priest do not live in the sacristy unlike the two hypothetical people living together without sinning.

They don’t sleep together in the same room.

The pre-conditions are distinctly different.

Maybe, but who are we to judge this?

What I think you are arguing is that “near occasion of sin” is different for everyone. I would agree to that.

Sure it’s different to everyone, that’s why you cannot base your judgment on what other people would or would not do in that situation.

However that does not give us license to test these different boundaries, especially when the main reason for doing so is for financial reasons and especially when the reasonable possible fallout is grave. So we are betting a mortal sin (fornication) and damage to a future relationship to possibly win financial gain? Would you bet a relationship to win money?

No, but I know that if I were in Alterum’s situation, I would not be betting my relationship, and if I believed sleeping with my girlfriend was a mortal sin (which obviously, I don’t) I would not be betting that either.
Isn’t it better to just lock everyone up, so they won’t have any temptation at all and be saved? The world is full of temptations, and if you cannot deal with them, don’t live.