Living together but not having sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robin_86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont think there is any scandal with this because of modern culture. It is the way people do things now. The sexual aspects are the moral ones. Not the address of the people!
What you’re saying is that you look just the same as any other couple.
As a Catholic who is dating, this is when you model the good example of Christian dating to others. This is when you show God that you mean to follow his plan for dating and married life. This is when you show your resolve to do good and to reject how the world tries to conform people to go off the path that God has designed. This is when you show the person dating that you mean business in guarding their immortal soul and guiding them closer to Christ.
 

I Am the Light of the World​

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

The darkness has nothing to offer a Catholic who walks in the light.
Do not be fooled. Do not be persuaded by the world that has forsaken Christ that it has some kind of wisdom to offer.
 
I dont think there is any scandal with this because of modern culture. It is the way people do things now. The sexual aspects are the moral ones. Not the address of the people!
Note what St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 72 (1980), 1082, that for Catholics divorced and remarried civilly and living together (as brother and sister and having repented) are not able to receive communion when it presents a stumbling block (scandal).
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm

So this is the meaning of scandal, as the Catholic Church uses it. Modern Catholic Dictionary
  • 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 foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.
    (Etym. Latin scandalum , stumbling block.)
  • Scandal of the weak: Disedifying morally weak persons by permissible conduct. Circumstances determine the duty in charity to avoid giving scandal to the weak. The existence of such a duty is clear from the teaching of St. Paul, who would not eat meat that had been offered to idols lest he scandalize the weaker brethren. He warned the early Christians not to rationalize their conduct but to follow his example, lest “by sinning in this way against our brothers and injuring their weak consciences, it would be Christ against whom you sinned” (I Corinthians 8:12). This obligation in charity is such that one may licitly refrain from fulfilling even a grave positive precept that is not necessary for salvation in order to prevent serious scandal to the weak. Behind the obligation is the mandate of selfless love that seeks not only to help another in obvious need but also by self-restraint to protect another from spiritual harm.
 
Last edited:
But if someone says they are treating their relationship as brother and sister, does that still make it okay?
It’s likely a near occasion of sin and could be considered scandalous.

Practically speaking it’s a bad idea. Despite all the advice against it, a family member of mine moved in with someone for “financial” reasons. They were given the best counsel on how to avoid this slippery slope. They ignored everyone and are expecting their first child in 2020. They’re also rushing around trying to plan a wedding that may or may not be done inside the Catholic Church.

In short, it’s imprudent and inadvisable.
 
Last edited:
It is. Any time one publicly sins, entices others to sin or gives the appearance of sin it is scandal. Making it appear that a sin is not a sin, tempting another to sin or making it apparent that one doesn’t care about offending God is an occasion of scandal.
We’re not talking about someone sinning or is purposefully enticing somebody to sin. As for giving the appearance that one is sinning, it’s definitely not clear cut.

Basically it’s because there will always be people thinking that you are sinning. So we use common sense.

E.g. Some people think a woman veiling is being prideful. Should she discard her veil because people may think she’s sinning for veiling?

The key part is that for something to be a scandal, it has to induce sin. Even then, it’s not clear cut.

Some people may think pants are immodest and they lust over it. Should we stop wearing pants?

We would obviously take into account the culture that we’re in, factors like the intent of the person.
Making it appear that a sin is not a sin, tempting another to sin or making it apparent that one doesn’t care about offending God is an occasion of scandal
What’s being talked about if the act of two people living together would fall in any of these categories. E.g. Two people living in an apartment in New York but aren’t dating wouldn’t fall into these categories, even if gossipy old Margaret next door thinks otherwise.

Emphasis on your last phrase, of course, because one can put that on anybody. Anything you do can lead to someone gossiping (I.e. Sin) Hence, the main thing we need to focus on when discussing scandal is whether that act induces another to sin, because of you.

Remember, Jesus’ actions caused gossip, and people thought he was breaking God’s commandments. Context matters, which is ultimately my point
 
Last edited:
Sorry I probably shouldn’t LOL at your first paragraph but I did. I have family members like that…

In your second paragraph (how do you quote on this forum btw, I’m a bit if a noob)…
And look I completely agree it’ a grey area. I think I’m trying to get to the heart of where our responsibility ends and others’ begins.

I, and others, have lost so much in life, due to gossip, innuendo, false accusation, etc etc. Your guilty even if your in a different geographical location and can prove it… So my goal is for all of us to understand the theory so we can put it into practice effectively. One excercise I remember quite distinctly in Catholic school when we played the telephone game. The first person hears “order pizza” and by the end it’s “I like cheese at the tower of Piza” lol.

I especially believe this is important with newer Catholics. Let’s get it right and accurate, but not over burden either. Some posters in this thread have stated it as almost black and white, accusing other posters of willful disregard of catholic doctrine. I haven’t seen the scandal issue defined clearly and definitively enough yet in this thread to make an innuendo like that. Maybe I read it wrong.

I completely see your point regarding your child, and agree just avoid cohabitation for a variety of reasons, including your experience.

Just on that note could you say something like “we understand uncle … did that but we don’t think it’s ok to do that. We of course love him but that’s not how we as Catholics believe we should do things”
I’m sorry though, and agree that’s a tough situation for a parent.
 
For instance, let’s say that I am seen going into and coming out of the local “house of ill repute” every weeknight.
Agreed, it is not clear-cut, and while we seek to avoid scandal, we don’t have to “jump through hoops” to do it. To use a simple example, let’s say I am taking a night class at the university, and I have a poor, struggling female classmate who needs a ride home late at night on a regular basis — she can’t afford bus fare, or the route to her house is unsafe, I drive right by there, there’s no reason not to. She confides to me that she has food insecurity and has been skipping meals because she can’t afford to eat that often. We stop by the drive-in and get a bite to eat while sitting in my car — I get something too, even though I’m not hungry, so she won’t feel like she’s sponging. We get in this routine. I’m a divorced man without an annulment, and people know this — I make no secret of my status. People might take it upon themselves to talk. That is just too bad. I’m taking pity on someone who lives in poverty. It’s a corporal work of mercy. I’m doing what I have to do, and if anyone asked me about it, I’d explain the situation, no need to volunteer it, but I’d explain if I were asked. They might walk away saying “sure, Homie, sure, ‘corporal work of mercy’, is that what they’re calling it nowadays?”, while murmuring otherwise. Again, that is just too bad.

That’s a little different from parking my car in front of a bawdyhouse five nights a week, going in, and spending about an hour there. Those are optics that really don’t have any other reasonable explanation, regardless of how innocently I spend my time there.
 
Last edited:
I personally didn’t read this persons comment as dismissive. I certainly don’t agree with the idea of cohabitation but I didn’t read his comment as dismissive. I’ll read it again later after I get back from work though. Regards.
 
Cohabitating in the case of people who are participating in a relationship i.e. boyfriend and girlfriend is not considered OK. However if the two individuals are just roommates and don’t share the same bedroom and don’t participate in any sexual relations whatsoever then it’s OK
I wants knew two people who were engaged to be married the parents disapproved of the relationship and as a result through their son out of their house. They did not want their son to convert to Catholicism. Try is they might they couldn’t find anywhere for him to live and he didn’t make enough to get his own apartment. His girlfriend took him in it was a two bedroom apartment and he slept in a different bedroom. They did not have any sexual relationship until they were married. Although this is considered cohabitation because no sin was committed it’s OK. If you feel that the temptation would be too great and you would send then having your boyfriend live with you would be considered an occasion of sin. It’s a slippery slope if you can avoid it then do so. But if all other options have been exhausted and both individuals are committed to waiting until marriage then it’s not sinful as long as they remain chased…
 
But I think most people live together. Most catholics I know have. I dont really consider their sex lives.
It is a statistical fact, most people, including Catholics, live together without being married AND have sex outside of marriage.
You have never considered it but it is a fact, the two come together almost all the times.

And people assuming that thoses who lived together have sex. It is the principle of “scandal”.
 
Last edited:
Cohabitating in the case of people who are participating in a relationship i.e. boyfriend and girlfriend is not considered OK. However if the two individuals are just roommates and don’t share the same bedroom and don’t participate in any sexual relations whatsoever then it’s OK
Boyfriend roommate: I’m going to brush my teeth, you need to use bathroom?

Girlfriend roommate: No! Come tuck me in!

Boyfriend Roommate: No! You know Father said we can’t do that!

Girlfriend Roommate: 😦
 
So I have a question for @pnwcatholic (which I have to assume is for Pacific Northwest Catholic).
Your priest prepped you for marriage, were you all catholic? And he said nothing about it being wrong to have sex outside marriage? Did he talk about going to confession, and how you guys should all go to confession for having sex outside marriage? Were you all using artificial birth control? Did he say anything about that?
I’m wondering what he did teach you.
Here’s an examination of conscience that makes it pretty clear that living together in a sexual relationship is indeed a sin (see the section on the sixth and ninth commandments).

 
Last edited:
Imho its a bit hard not to feel a but beat up on these forums. I find myself holding myself holding my toung frequently. Thank you for your priesthood, example, and perspective on these forums, I for one appreciate it greatly.
 
Don’t. That temptation is always going to be there, so unless there is a definitive reason to do it, like the person will be homeless otherwise, don’t.
 
That’s a little different from parking my car in front of a bawdyhouse five nights a week, going in, and spending about an hour there. Those are optics that really don’t have any other reasonable explanation, regardless of how innocently I spend my time there.
Again, I’m pretty sure a Saint did this to evangelise the women there. I would be curious if people thought he was committing a sin. I would imagine it being wrong if someone were to ask you, or you know someone thought you were doing something wrong and you make no attempt to explain yourself?
 
And people assuming that thoses who lived together have sex. It is the principle of “scandal
Would it be an issue if the people around them do not know they’re Catholic?

I feel like everyone who do not know you would immediately assume you’re having sex out of marriage, even if you’re single. I wonder how that would be navigated, especially when you’re publicly dating someone? Because most people are having sex? A bunch of people thought my friend and her boyfriend were having sex because they were together for years. Only her close friends know that they’re waiting till marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top