K
Katie1723
Guest
If two people are living together(one is married, but not to the other) but not being intimate,is it still considered adultery thereby making it sinful for the Catholic of the couple to receive the sacraments?
- Status
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Well, adultery by definition is the act of engaging in sexual activity with someone who is not your spouse (unless both parties are unmarried, which would connote fornication).
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Whew.
Living together, but not “intimate”?
Talk about an explosive situation, especially when one person is already married to somebody else.
Think about it. How likely is it that this “innocent” situation is totally innocent, or will remain so?
Do you think that the parties would care what others thought of it?
Would be comfortable explaining it to, say, an 11 or 12 year old youth. . .“Yes, Junior or Buffy, even though Mr. X is married still to Mrs. X, he is living with Miss Y, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong going on”.
Junior and Buffy, even if absolute home-schooled angels raised in Pleasantville of the 1950s, are going to be at best confused and at worst totally screwed up about the scenario.
It flies in the face of probability. It mocks the marriage bond of Mr. and Mrs. X. It scandalizes the innocent. It impugns indirectly the character of Ms. Y who chooses to allow a married man to live with her instead of his lawfully married wife.
But, instead of fraternal counseling and correction, we are, it seems, expected to leap into either the false, “Well, how dare we judge people, it could be innocent but people have dirty minds, nothing is really happening so how could it be wrong” relativist dreck of today, or else attempt to ignore it as “not our business”.
I guess it seems more “loving” to assume the best or attempt to sidestep any sort of action that seems to “judge” people, especially if on the surface it doesn’t seem like there’s much to judge.
Good intentions. . .paving that broad road to destruction. . .
I feel sorry for all those involved in this “scenario”. . .the married man and his wife (no tears for her or even an idea that she could be concerned in this, I note), the unmarried woman who isn’t “doing anything wrong” by just living with that man, and the myriads of people who are impacted, by being relatives, friends, or even casual acquaintances, who have to choose between seeing and approving, attempting not to “see” at all, or seeing and disapproving.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t “call” technicalities; but I do recall that Jesus said that even looking lustfully at someone was to commit adultery.
The situation is irregular and wrong. Maybe it’s not (yet) a mortal sin but it is still sinful, and could become mortal. These people need a good solid priest, separate apartments, and thorough confessions, IMO.
Living together, but not “intimate”?
Talk about an explosive situation, especially when one person is already married to somebody else.
Think about it. How likely is it that this “innocent” situation is totally innocent, or will remain so?
Do you think that the parties would care what others thought of it?
Would be comfortable explaining it to, say, an 11 or 12 year old youth. . .“Yes, Junior or Buffy, even though Mr. X is married still to Mrs. X, he is living with Miss Y, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong going on”.
Junior and Buffy, even if absolute home-schooled angels raised in Pleasantville of the 1950s, are going to be at best confused and at worst totally screwed up about the scenario.
It flies in the face of probability. It mocks the marriage bond of Mr. and Mrs. X. It scandalizes the innocent. It impugns indirectly the character of Ms. Y who chooses to allow a married man to live with her instead of his lawfully married wife.
But, instead of fraternal counseling and correction, we are, it seems, expected to leap into either the false, “Well, how dare we judge people, it could be innocent but people have dirty minds, nothing is really happening so how could it be wrong” relativist dreck of today, or else attempt to ignore it as “not our business”.
I guess it seems more “loving” to assume the best or attempt to sidestep any sort of action that seems to “judge” people, especially if on the surface it doesn’t seem like there’s much to judge.
Good intentions. . .paving that broad road to destruction. . .
I feel sorry for all those involved in this “scenario”. . .the married man and his wife (no tears for her or even an idea that she could be concerned in this, I note), the unmarried woman who isn’t “doing anything wrong” by just living with that man, and the myriads of people who are impacted, by being relatives, friends, or even casual acquaintances, who have to choose between seeing and approving, attempting not to “see” at all, or seeing and disapproving.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t “call” technicalities; but I do recall that Jesus said that even looking lustfully at someone was to commit adultery.
The situation is irregular and wrong. Maybe it’s not (yet) a mortal sin but it is still sinful, and could become mortal. These people need a good solid priest, separate apartments, and thorough confessions, IMO.
K
katherine2
Guest
On another thread, discussing the “public scandal” of two people who present themselves as a couple and if they should be allowed to step foot on Catholic school grounds, it seems that many beleive that the assumption of sin should be there even if third parties do not have absolute evidence of the actual sin.
K
kmktexas
Guest
But for a married person to date is also considered adultery so I would guess that living with a person of the opposite sex under most conditions would be too.
It also might be the sin of causing scandal unless everyone who would have the right to know, including family members, neighbors and close friends were convinced by the couple that they are friends only and not romantically involved. The level of intimacy is only one aspect of what might be an improper relationship for a married person. The sin of causing scandal might be serious enough to be mortal and keep one from the sacraments depending on the circumstances. For example, if young children are involved. This would need to be covered during the Sacrament of Pennance.
J
JamesD
Guest
If I couple is married by civil law but are not considered married by the church. Divorce and remarrage without a declaration of unulment for example. They cannot receive until this is corrected.
It can be corrected in two ways:
Additionaly, if a couple “lives together” I think we must not assume that they are intimate. I know, I know, its a naieve thought. But, it is not for us to judge this couple. However, if they make it known that they are intimate, we may judge their action and condemn their sin (charitably and privately of course).
It can be corrected in two ways:
- The unulment is declared by the church and the couple is properly married in the eyes of the church.
- The couple decides to not be intimate. They can live together like brother and sister. This could be a temporary arangement untill 1) is completed or as a permanent solution.
Additionaly, if a couple “lives together” I think we must not assume that they are intimate. I know, I know, its a naieve thought. But, it is not for us to judge this couple. However, if they make it known that they are intimate, we may judge their action and condemn their sin (charitably and privately of course).
- Status