People living together before marriage - is it allowed?

[Young_Thinker]

As much as you like to do a lot of pondering Young Thinker, I think several of us require some proper reasoning behind this, and not just someone’s opinion based on assumptions of sorts.

I appreciate your charity, but I feel that what I said is only common sense. And the trends in society seem to be rather obvious. For instance, in the present American culture, it is common for a man to worry about being seen as effeminate(in America, male effeminacy is automatically linked with homoeroticism, for some reason). A century ago, two friends of the same gender could share a house without any obvious suspicion. Now, it is often a different story.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I appreciate your charity, but I feel that what I said is only common sense. And the trends in society seem to be rather obvious. For instance, in the present American culture, it is common for a man to worry about being seen as effeminate(in America, male effeminacy is automatically linked with homoeroticism, for some reason). A century ago, two friends of the same gender could share a house without any obvious suspicion. Now, it is often a different story.

Sorry, I think I was referring to the other bit; shacking up together. Not the statements on homosexuality.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Sorry, I think I was referring to the other bit; shacking up together. Not the statements on homosexuality.

All right. I may be old-fashioned, but I just believe that a common decency should always ensue. For instance, a person simultaneously be immoral and discrete(I am not saying that that is right, either; just it is better than being immoral and indiscrete). There is a difference between morality and etiquette.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I heard before of one Priest who told people living together prior to marriage to live apart for six months before the marriage.

ie. the Priest recognised that it was a scandal for two Catholics to be living togther before marraige and their moving into different residences would acknowledge that before family and friends.

Almost all of my friends live together before marriage

I love it when people needlessly worry themselves with matters that don’t involve them, it makes me feel warm all over.

 

[tjm190]

Our society seems to be obsessed with homophilia. However, I do think that it is very indecent to share a room with one of the opposite gender or for a man to share a [non-boarding] house with any lady who is not his close relative.

So we’re down to your personal opinion? Do you accept that there is no sin of scandal/no intrinsic sin of lust involved?

 

[Young_Thinker]

So we’re down to your personal opinion? Do you accept that there is no sin of scandal/no intrinsic sin of lust involved?

I am sory that you feel that it is merely my own opinion. Scandal itself is not a sin; it just surrounds a sin, whether it is real or imagined. It is mainly about circumstances.

 

[tjm190]

I am sory that you feel that it is merely my own opinion. Scandal itself is not a sin; it just surrounds a sin, whether it is real or imagined. It is mainly about circumstances.

You said “I do think that it is very indecent to share a room with one of the opposite gender or for a man to share a [non-boarding] house with any lady who is not his close relative.”

That’s either an unqualified statement (aka you need to show why it is indecent) or an opinion.

And scandal actually IS a sin- scandal meaning leading others into sin. I believe this is distinct from others assuming you are sinning, however.

 

[buffalo]

Let us not forget the sin of scandal.

Many couples ask to get married in the Church. They ask the Priest to break his vows or they hide it from them.

I was present at a wedding of a couple that lived together for several years. They hid it from Father. Father spoke about how it would be the first day they woke up together for the first time. Everyone in the Church chuckled. How embarassing for the Priest and the couple.

 

[Young_Thinker]

You said “I do think that it is very indecent to share a room with one of the opposite gender or for a man to share a [non-boarding] house with any lady who is not his close relative.”

That’s either an unqualified statement (aka you need to show why it is indecent) or an opinion.

And scandal actually IS a sin- scandal meaning leading others into sin. I believe this is distinct from others assuming you are sinning, however.

Very well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So we are to abandon our Christian sense of charity on the matter? Are we to let modern society dictate what we believe? I can think of a few people I know who were roommates in college that just about everyone thought were gay- does that mean they were causing scandal?

No. And there’s no need to assume they’re gay, let alone actively so, unless two people state so: “I’m a gay/lesbian, upfront about my sexuality, and live with my partner…” etc. That’s stating that you are sexually attracted to the person you’re living with, so unless you stated otherwise, people could reasonably assume privately that you were in fact having sex. It would be uncharitable to gossip about it. However, it would also be (Catholic) scandal on the couple’s part to represent that apparent obvious moral problem.

And yes, it’s possible to live together and and not have sex and not create scandal about that – particularly if you qualify that, publically. (‘We’re living celibate lives but sharing a house and are engaged.’) But whether you’re gay or straight, it is problematic for the couple to embrace cohabitation when they’re clearly sexually attracted to each other. It creates tension in the relationship to abstain for a long period, let alone permanently. Not recommended.

 

[GEddie]

All right. I may be old-fashioned, but I just believe that a common decency should always ensue.

The difficulty arises because “common decency” is no longer common, more’s the pity.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

And scandal actually IS a sin- scandal meaning leading others into sin. I believe this is distinct from others assuming you are sinning, however.

It is distinct, but not wholly a separate issue. “I assume A and B are sinning together” is simply the antecedent to “…and they are Catholic, and I see them at Mass, so what they are doing must be ok”. ICXC NIKA

 

[tjm190]

No. And there’s no need to assume they’re gay, let alone actively so, unless two people state so: “I’m a gay/lesbian, upfront about my sexuality, and live with my partner…” etc. That’s stating that you are sexually attracted to the person you’re living with, so unless you stated otherwise, people could reasonably assume privately that you were in fact having sex. It would be uncharitable to gossip about it. However, it would also be (Catholic) scandal on the couple’s part to represent that apparent obvious moral problem.

It’s reasonable to assume that two people who are living together and attracted to one another are heaving sex? Says who? If two people who are sexually attracted to one another are in the same room alone for more than 10 minutes, can I assume they’re having sex?

And yes, it’s possible to live together and and not have sex and not create scandal about that – particularly if you qualify that, publically. (‘We’re living celibate lives but sharing a house and are engaged.’) But whether you’re gay or straight, it is problematic for the couple to embrace cohabitation when they’re clearly sexually attracted to each other. It creates tension in the relationship to abstain for a long period, let alone permanently. Not recommended.

Why is it your job to go around and tell people you aren’t sinning? Does a couple with no children have to wear a sign proclaiming that they aren’t using contraception?

And if the couple thinks they can handle it, that is their call. Some people actually enjoy each other’s company (gasp!)

 

[tjm190]

It is distinct, but not wholly a separate issue. “I assume A and B are sinning together” is simply the antecedent to “…and they are Catholic, and I see them at Mass, so what they are doing must be ok”. ICXC NIKA

So let’s say its Lent and I’m supposed to be fasting. And I do fast- but rather than ‘disfiguring my face so that I may be seen to be fasting by others’ I ‘anoint my head with oil and wash my face so that I do not seem to be fasting’- People may well assume I’m not fasting, and then assume that not fasting is okay. Did I just cause scandal?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

All right. I may be old-fashioned, but I just believe that a common decency should always ensue. For instance, a person simultaneously be immoral and discrete(I am not saying that that is right, either; just it is better than being immoral and indiscrete). There is a difference between morality and etiquette.

Etiquette is determined based on the views of the party involved. It’s common etiquette not to show the soles of your shoes in the muslim world. Hence when American soldiers had their feet hanging off their Black Hawk helicopters in 1993 during the Battle of Mogadishu, the Somalian citizens took that as a sign of major disrespect.

Two people shacking up together obviously aren’t going to be upset that they both are shacking up with each other. This is a subjective issue, not an objective one.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

The difficulty arises because “common decency” is no longer common, more’s the pity.

ICXC NIKA.

The difficulty arises when subjective issues are confused with objective issues. Common decency is an ambiguous term. To argue against shacking up using the argument for common decency is neither objective, nor Biblical. It should be saved for a day when you’re discussing cultural differences across cultures.

Try again.

 

[GEddie]

So let’s say its Lent and I’m supposed to be fasting. And I do fast- but rather than ‘disfiguring my face so that I may be seen to be fasting by others’ I ‘anoint my head with oil and wash my face so that I do not seem to be fasting’- People may well assume I’m not fasting, and then assume that not fasting is okay. Did I just cause scandal?

No, because there is no perceived connexion between external (public) behavior and fasting.

There is, however, a widely held assumption that people who cohabit as a couple behave sexually together.

 

[tjm190]

No, because there is no perceived connexion between external (public) behavior and fasting.

There is, however, a widely held assumption that people who cohabit as a couple behave sexually together.

What? If someone is fasting do you expect them to look their best? Jesus seemed quite adamant that if we are making a sacrifice for God, be it fasting, a monetary donation, or prayer, that we should hide it. In this case, a couple is making a sacrifice by not fulfilling their sexual desires. They should not announces this, by Christ’s logic, because then they would ‘receive their reward’ on Earth.

And again- people may well assume that two men who cohabitate and just happen to like musicals and carry handbags are sexually active.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

No, because there is no perceived connexion between external (public) behavior and fasting.

There is, however, a widely held assumption that people who cohabit as a couple behave sexually together.

True, but this doesn’t mean it’s a sin for people to actually cohabit. Which is the ultimate point here.

It is no sin to actually live under the same roof as someone you’re sexually attracted to, or cohabit with your boy/girlfriend. Throw in some variables and assumptions, then yes, perhaps. The bare-bones I’m interested in, or the point I’m trying to make is, simply cohabiting is not a sin in itself.

End of discussion.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Etiquette is determined based on the views of the party involved. It’s common etiquette not to show the soles of your shoes in the muslim world. Hence when American soldiers had their feet hanging off their Black Hawk helicopters in 1993 during the Battle of Mogadishu, the Somalian citizens took that as a sign of major disrespect.

Two people shacking up together obviously aren’t going to be upset that they both are shacking up with each other. This is a subjective issue, not an objective one.

In a way, it is subjective, but one has to look at the larger picture. For one thing, Western society a century ago would have been horrified by such behavior. Mrs. Post certainly would have found concubinage to be vulgar. Frankly, people have lost good taste. Also, certain behaviors, like cohabitation, can clearly lead to sin. It is never a wise idea to encourage yourself or other people sin. That is why they are called compromising situations.