Receiving the Eucharist when Cohabitating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy485
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
TrueLight said:
Having said that, I would caution the OP to search her heart and make sure that her desire to report her ex is not based on vestiges of hurt from the breakup.
Click to expand...
I have been struggling with this for that reason…(If that makes sense). Another poster mentioned that I wouldn’t go to the preist if I knew something about another parishiner (this is true). Thank you all for your replies.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
In neither of those links is there any reference to any Church teaching. I do not say that those answers are wrong. I would like to know where the Church teaches this.
Click to expand...
The Church does not issue “teachings” per se on each possible situation in the moral life. One is not going to necessarily find a document that says “even if your not having sexual relations do not live together”…or “if you are walking and find a wallet with lots of money in it --look at the license and look up the person and give them a call”.

One has the various moral principles that one is to apply to all things. Moral Theology treats of the many varied matters in life.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
In
Click to expand...
From the document of the Kansas Bishops:

"Is Scandal Still a Possibility?

For society: As society no longer adheres to traditional moral values and norms, scandal becomes less and less of a concern to many people. Even so, the church still teaches clearly and consistently that premarital sexual intercourse objectively is mortally sinful. Couples who live together, even if they are not engaging in premarital sexual relations, give the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable."
 
Bookcat said:
The Church does not issue “teachings” per se on each possible situation in the moral life. One is not going to necessarily find a document that says “even if your not having sexual relations do not live together”…or “if you are walking and find a wallet with lots of money in it --look at the license and look up the person and give them a call”.

One has the various moral principles that one is to apply to all things. Moral Theology treats of the many varied matters in life.
Click to expand...
There may have been a teaching on this matter. You seemed so convinced of this I wondered on what you based your opinion. Regarding your wallet example then that is more clear: to keep the money would obviously be a sin. I still do not see how living together is a sin. By living together I mean two or more persons sharing the same dwelling but not being in a relationship, sexual or otherwise. It is surely also a sin to infer that people might be sinning. Goodness knows what people might think if three people shared a dwelling. When I was a student I shared a house with several other students. We could not afford to do otherwise. We were all males. Does that infer we were engaging in homosexual acts? I certainly hope not!
 
Bookcat said:
From the document of the Kansas Bishops:

"Is Scandal Still a Possibility?

For society: As society no longer adheres to traditional moral values and norms, scandal becomes less and less of a concern to many people. Even so, the church still teaches clearly and consistently that premarital sexual intercourse objectively is mortally sinful. Couples who live together, even if they are not engaging in premarital sexual relations, give the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable."
Click to expand...
This fails to take into account the situation in today’s world in which it is COMMON and socially acceptable for roommates of the opposite sex to live together in separate rooms platonically. No one assumes that they are having sex if they do not identify as a couple. Maybe where you live this isn’t common, but it certainly is in my city. Where is the scandal here? Does the Church teach that it is intrinsically evil for two or more people of the opposite sex to live under the same roof? I certainly agree that COUPLES who are romantically involved should not live together outside of marriage - but several posters have implied that even platonic roommates somehow causes scandal. I know of arrangements with two girls and one guy or various other combinations thereof live under the same roof - there is no hint of romantic involvement between any parties, and no one in any of their circles assumes for a moment that there is anything sexual. With the very high cost of living in this city (especially for housing) it is a very common situation among single people. I just don’t see where the scandal is.
 
twf said:
This fails to take into account the situation in today’s world in which it is COMMON and socially acceptable for roommates of the opposite sex to live together in separate rooms platonically. No one assumes that they are having sex if they do not identify as a couple. Maybe where you live this isn’t common, but it certainly is in my city. Where is the scandal here? Does the Church teach that it is intrinsically evil for two or more people of the opposite sex to live under the same roof? I certainly agree that COUPLES who are romantically involved should not live together outside of marriage - but several posters have implied that even platonic roommates somehow causes scandal. I know of arrangements with two girls and one guy or various other combinations thereof live under the same roof - there is no hint of romantic involvement between any parties, and no one in any of their circles assumes for a moment that there is anything sexual. With the very high cost of living in this city (especially for housing) it is a very common situation among single people. I just don’t see where the scandal is.
Click to expand...
Same principles apply.

And as the Bishops there noted…even though many are not scandalized it “give(s) the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.”

And we are Christians. And as with the early Christians we are to live differently than the society around us.

One finds the right means to resolve the difficulty…
 
Matthew_Holford said:
There may have been a teaching on this matter. You seemed so convinced of this I wondered on what you based your opinion. Regarding your wallet example then that is more clear: to keep the money would obviously be a sin. I still do not see how living together is a sin. /QUOTE]

See the above Bishops document.

as the Bishops there noted…even though many are not scandalized it “give(s) the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.”

And as with the early Christians we are to live differently than the society around us.
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
See the above Bishops document.
Click to expand...
In that document the bishops use the word “couple”. They are saying that if a man and woman in a relationship, other than marriage, are co-habiting they give scandal as many will assume they are having a sexual relationship. They do not say that it is wrong for people who are not in a relationship to live in the same dwelling.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
In that document the bishops use the word “couple”. They are saying that if a man and woman in a relationship, other than marriage, are co-habiting they give scandal as many will assume they are having a sexual relationship. They do not say that it is wrong for people who are not in a relationship to live in the same dwelling.
Click to expand...
Yes cause the document is written for couples as the audience. But still I would think that this line

it “give(s) the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.” Still applies.

That such does not change much really if they are not “a couple”.

Many many people will only know they are not a couple. And such a public act of living together is going to bring the presumption that they are so engaged…so it seems to me that such is not the way to go -especially for a Christian. It can be a source of scandal of one kind or another. And can become a near occasion of sin. How many “relationships” developed from a non-romantic start…heck how many marriages!

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=498040&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=living+together&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=63&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
 
People can find other living arrangements that do not involve living with the opposite sex.
 
You know the problem is not just male with female. In some places in the US it is generally understood two guys living together are having sex - what then, safer to live in apartment with a girl for fear of scandel?
 
hilde_the_dog said:
You know the problem is not just male with female. In some places in the US it is generally understood two guys living together are having sex - what then, safer to live in apartment with a girl for fear of scandel?
Click to expand...
The presumption is not really going to be that two guys living together are homosexual. And I imagine if there is such a place…say a predominate homosexual apartment building…well I would suggest renting somewhere else.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes cause the document is written for couples as the audience. But still I would think that this line

it “give(s) the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.” Still applies.

That such does not change much really if they are not “a couple”.

Many many people will only know they are not a couple. And such a public act of living together is going to bring the presumption that they are so engaged…so it seems to me that such is not the way to go -especially for a Christian. It can be a source of scandal of one kind or another. And can become a near occasion of sin. How many “relationships” developed from a non-romantic start…heck how many marriages!
Click to expand...
That should have read “many many people will only know they live together…they will not know they are not a couple”
 
Bookcat said:
And as with the early Christians we are to live differently than the society around us.
Click to expand...
Bookcat - I’m with you! In an age where we are inundated with all manner of perversions, unrelentless attack against traditional family and commitment to fidelity and marriage, and so few good examples of morally upright standards, why would we ever consider conforming our image to what the world finds acceptable?
 
twf said:
This fails to take into account the situation in today’s world in which it is COMMON and socially acceptable for roommates of the opposite sex to live together in separate rooms platonically. No one assumes that they are having sex if they do not identify as a couple. Maybe where you live this isn’t common, but it certainly is in my city. Where is the scandal here? Does the Church teach that it is intrinsically evil for two or more people of the opposite sex to live under the same roof? I certainly agree that COUPLES who are romantically involved should not live together outside of marriage - but several posters have implied that even platonic roommates somehow causes scandal. I know of arrangements with two girls and one guy or various other combinations thereof live under the same roof - there is no hint of romantic involvement between any parties, and no one in any of their circles assumes for a moment that there is anything sexual. With the very high cost of living in this city (especially for housing) it is a very common situation among single people. I just don’t see where the scandal is.
Click to expand...
:bible1:
From all
appearance of evil
refrain yourselves.

- 1 Thessalonians 5:22

+The above quoted material from twf . . . encourages the . . . **extremely faulty **. . . “rationalization” . . . of the ancient Satanic lie of . . . **“everybody’s doing it - so that makes it OK and makes it right” **. . .

Using the . . . **faulty unsound rationale **. . . that “COMMON” and “socially acceptable” makes something OK and right is a premise every one of **God’s **children needs to . . . reject out of hand . . . as being . . . disordered reasoning . . . and . . . completely opposed . . . to the teachings of our Holy Mother Catholic Church . . . which teaches the serious lost condition and state of the grave sinfulness and utterly corrupt nature of fallen mankind . . . and mankind’s departure from the holy pathways of God through the mortal (deadly) original sin of disobedience . . . and God’s plan of salvation throughout the ages to salvage souls from this fallen state and restore them to the uncorrupt . . . “image of God” . . . in which mankind’s first parents . . . Adam and Eve . . . were originally created . . .

The above portion of . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . God’s** Holy Word** . . . is our clear instruction to order our lives carefully in love for God and for our neighbor . . . so as not to give even the appearance of evil . . . so as not to scandalize another weaker neighboring soul . . . and draw them into what could in their lives become a pathway into grave and mortal sin . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​
 
Jesus_123 said:
:bible1:
From all
appearance of evil
refrain yourselves.

- 1 Thessalonians 5:22

+The above quoted material from twf . . . encourages the . . . **extremely faulty **. . . “rationalization” . . . of the ancient Satanic lie of . . . **“everybody’s doing it - so that makes it OK and makes it right” **. . .

Using the . . . **faulty unsound rationale **. . . that “COMMON” and “socially acceptable” makes something OK and right is a premise every one of **God’s **children needs to . . . reject out of hand . . . as being . . . disordered reasoning . . . and . . . completely opposed . . . to the teachings of our Holy Mother Catholic Church . . . which teaches the serious lost condition and state of the grave sinfulness and utterly corrupt nature of fallen mankind . . . and mankind’s departure from the holy pathways of God through the mortal (deadly) original sin of disobedience . . . and God’s plan of salvation throughout the ages to salvage souls from this fallen state and restore them to the uncorrupt . . . “image of God” . . . in which mankind’s first parents . . . Adam and Eve . . . were originally created . . .

The above portion of . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . God’s** Holy Word** . . . is our clear instruction to order our lives carefully in love for God and for our neighbor . . . so as not to give even the appearance of evil . . . so as not to scandalize another weaker neighboring soul . . . and draw them into what could in their lives become a pathway into grave and mortal sin . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​
Click to expand...
I agree. That’s why I said that it would not be prudent for a COUPLE to live together outside of marriage. I still have seen nothing in this thread that convinces me that a group of males and females living under the same dwelling is intrinsically evil…especially in societies where such is the norm WITHOUT any assumption of sexual relations. By the logic presented on this thread it is a mortal sin for me to check into a hotel that may also house (for the night) members of the opposite sex. Two men living together could just as easily imply homosexuality in many modern North American cities - and in fact I’ve seen that mistake made more than once… perhaps the only possible moral option is to find some way to afford the rent for your own place if you’re single.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes cause the document is written for couples as the audience. But still I would think that this line

it “give(s) the impression to the community that such an arrangement is totally acceptable.” Still applies.

That such does not change much really if they are not “a couple”.

Many many people will only know they are not a couple. And such a public act of living together is going to bring the presumption that they are so engaged…so it seems to me that such is not the way to go -especially for a Christian. It can be a source of scandal of one kind or another. And can become a near occasion of sin. How many “relationships” developed from a non-romantic start…heck how many marriages!

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=498040&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=living+together&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=63&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
Click to expand...
I know that it is a sin to have sex with someone unless you are married to them. It is also likely to be assumed by many people that a man and woman who are, say, boyfriend and girlfriend, co-habiting might be having sex. I think it is less reasonable to assume that people who share a dwelling as, say, room mates are having sex. That makes the presumption that we are all immoral. That is a dangerous path to take. Surely we are not to presume what state another’s soul is in and whether or not they are behaving immorally.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I know that it is a sin to have sex with someone unless you are married to them. It is also likely to be assumed by many people that a man and woman who are, say, boyfriend and girlfriend, co-habiting might be having sex. I think it is less reasonable to assume that people who share a dwelling as, say, room mates are having sex. That makes the presumption that we are all immoral. That is a dangerous path to take. Surely we are not to presume what state another’s soul is in and whether or not they are behaving immorally.
Click to expand...
It is not a question of “what we ought to assume”

But what people will likely assume or even in fact assume.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top