More proof that any Catholic magazine that uses America or U.S. in the title sucks. From U.S. Catholic comes this travesty.
Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.
…Recent focus groups of young Catholic adults on “problematic aspects of church teaching” found that they disagreed with church teaching on premarital sex and cohabitation and do not see a fundamental difference in a loving relationship before and after a wedding. Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace.
Woooh Nelly! Wow do I have my ecclesiology wrong. Foolish me I thought development of doctrine had something to do with the authentic teaching Magisterium. Scouring Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine I totally missed the part about focus groups. I don’t recall reading about focus groups in Dave Armstrong’s excellent A Biblical Defense of Catholicism that included a section on true doctrinal development. What is the Latin words for focus group? Maybe that would help me to track it down.
Now they are right that cohabitation involves grace. “…but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20) God is always throwing us a lifeline (and thankfully He continuously does so for us poor sinners), but this is not growing in grace. When Catholic magazines equate objectively grave sin with growing in grace what we have here is pure evil. Though this is not a new development, but a continuing one.
The most recent and respected marriage research identifies two kinds of cohabitors: those who are not committed to marriage, whom we name “non-nuptial cohabitors,” and those already committed to marriage, perhaps even engaged, whom we name “nuptial cohabitors.”
Surely Uncle Screwatp had something to do with that last sentence if not the whole article. Both being objectively grave sin won’t help you on judgment to claim “but I was a nuptial cohabitator!”
Although only non-nuptial cohabitation is linked to an increased likelihood of divorce after marriage, the fact that many Catholics believe otherwise leaves current pastoral responses to cohabiting couples both uninformed and outdated.
Just when I had ranked the inanity scale of this article at 10 on a 1 to 10 scale they make me have to recalibrate the scale. Facts say one thing, but because the couples believe otherwise well that will changes everything! Charlie Brown believing Lucy is finally honest in holding down the football will only leave him flat on the back. Surely pastoral responses do have to change with the times to address the current situation. But they are still always pastoral responses to a sin. This article is dishonest in talking about pastoral responses when what they are saying is that fornication is not sinful and thus requires no pastoral response in the first place.
It also raises questions about church documents based on old research and the pastoral approaches they recommend. Church documents continue to lump all cohabitors together, focus narrowly on the sexual dimension of relationships, and ignore the variety and complexity of the intentions, situations, and meanings couples give to cohabitation and its morality.
Thankfully I have a gag reflex that is quite permissive so I can read such a statement without spewing. This word cohabitors is just so silly where fornication fits much betters. Now surely there are different levels of grave sin, but hey they are still grave sins regardless of future intentions. You can’t steal from a store because later you plan to buy the business.
Given the current research that demonstrates that not all cohabitors are alike, we propose the re-introduction of an ancient ritual of betrothal for nuptial cohabitors, followed by intensive marriage preparation in the Catholic pastoral tradition.
Committed for life
In his 1981 encyclical Familiaris Consortio (On the Family), Pope John Paul II taught that conjugal love “aims at a deeply personal unity, the unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.” This describes the commitment not only of married spouses but also of nuptial cohabitors who have definitively committed to a loving relationship with one another but who have not yet celebrated their wedding.
The sound you just heard was my jaw dropping several yards or meters for those on the metric scale. The term “nuptial cohabitators” is so ridiculous on so many levels it is hard to start. Now lets pretend that they are right (though you might have to use some drugs to do so). How about a situation where one person is cohabitating and plans marriage and the person they are “living” with does not. So by their distinction it would be sinful for one, but not the other. So without knowing for certain somebody’s commitment how in the world can you raise children in this environment when a pregnancy could result in revealing the true commitment of the other? How can their be a “deeply personal unity” when you can’t be sure that the other person is not just leading you on and using you? Yet this is exactly the conscience that this type of bad theology and thinking leads to.
This type of logic also makes the martyrdom of Saint Maria Goretti worthless. She died rather than to allow Alexandro to commit a sexual sin. Yet in the circumstance described above persons involved in “nuptial cohabitators” could never know for certain whether both were “nuptial cohabitators” or just whether that was only their intention and the other was sinning.
I also find it theologically sick to twist a letter on families by Pope John Paul II to apply in these situation. He won’t be turning in the grave over this misuse, but surely turning to prayer for these misguided article writers and all who belive such conscience. Something that we should all turn to.
In the 12th century, Gratian, the master of the school of law at the Catholic University of Bologna, introduced a compromise in the debate between the Romans and the northern Europeans over what brought about marriage. That compromise, still embodied in the Code of Canon Law (canon 1061), is that mutual consent makes a marriage ratified and valid, and sexual intercourse makes it ratified and consummated and, therefore, indissoluble.
Whenever a progressive spouts Canon Law you know immediately detect the fragrance of the species Rattus rattus. They cite Canon 1061 as if mutual consent was all it takes to create a valid marriage and that it can occur without the Church being involved. No mention of course is made of subsequent Canons that address preconditions to marriage and the norms and form they must follow. The type of logic they use would mean that once a couple decided to get married they were in fact already married. A marriage Mass in these supposed cases would just be a play acting of what had already occurred.
Now what about “nuptial cohabitators” who change their mind later and never in fact enter into marriage? Do they have to seek a decree of nullity before they can enter another “nuptial cohabitation?” If somebody such as myself can poke so many holes into such theological vapidness how in the world does such nonsense as this magazine make it into a Catholic magazine in the first place? But then again this magazine published by the Claretans has no problems with homosexuality, contraception, women’s ordination, etc so sadly this is not an exception.
Hat Tip: Roman Catholic by Choice.
39 comments
I saw this article & was just as disgusted by it as you. I don’t know where they got their logic to justify betrothal as allowing cohabitation. The history of betrothal belies that claim.
Yes, the betrothed couple was considered married (remember, Joseph had to consider divorce to seperate from Mary). But, at no point was it considered a license to cohabitate.
Rather than deal with the fact that cohabitation is sin, the people behind this idea are trying to paint a veneer of respectability on it.
Travesty, yes. Infamnia, definitely. Orthodox Catholic teaching, anything but.
Unfortunately, my gag reflex was in full swing with that one. A situation just too close to home right now with a sibling in that mindframe.
Coincidentally, I was thinking about this as I was waking up this morning, or at least s’thing related, w/o having read it. It occurred to me, (despite my dislike for that Mars/Venus book whose theories could have been stated in one article–smart marketing there) that one of the m/f differences is that woman interprets a REAL physical response to her presence (if acceptable and reciprocated) as a sign of love so sure that she could remain faithful to one romantic (to her) encounter for a decade even if separated from the man she loves. Her reading of the actuality of the attraction is correct, but her interpretation can be way off. In those ten years, unbeknownst to her, that male may have had a similar response to a couple of hundred women!
Pondering this, it came to me that the truth of a man’s love is IN his commitment through marriage and in his care for her and their family “as his own body”, and not in his physical responses. (Yes, it has taken almost half a decade for me to figure this out!) Taking this into account, it is never “safe” for a woman to live “as if married” with a man whom she thinks is committed to their relationship. The potential for inadvertent exploitation and pregnancy for which a “home” is not prepared is way too high.
Also, in the time of Mary and Joseph, betrothal was PUBLIC as well as personal, and also had legal ramifications. Joseph, though only betrothed to Mary, had to DECIDE not to divorce Mary…
All of which is to say that this “new” idea of cohabitation without marriage is a cafeteria-style justification of doing what one wants to do, with the full approval of society and the Church; in this case, sex without responsibility.
I have a family wedding coming up between a couple that has been living together for years, so maybe that’s why I’m thinking about it. The wedding, while a good, is hard to look forward to in that it will not (by the choice of the couple who feels no “need” for such things) be blessed by the Church and therefore, except for their final commitment, is rather anti-climactic.
Jeff…you are correct in all you say. But it might also be argued that John Paul II hurt marriage himself from the other side of things in his novel passages on Ephesian’s mutual headship being the only headship with the advent of the gospel (making the other 5 NT non Ephesians husband headship passages…the old Jewish culture) which idea went unchallenged with any vigor by a dependent clergy and by a dependent Catholic press. Ergo…the concept of husband headship which is insisted on along with mutual subjection by Pope Pius XI in section 74 of Casti Cannubii…that concept of God’s is now absent in the catechism. (See for John Paul’s idea: Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4 ….for God’s idea, see I Cor.11:3/Col.3:18/I Tim.2:11-12/Titus2:5/I Peter3:1/Ephesians5:22.)
There can be no such thing as different types of “co-habitators”. Even an engaged couple can decide, without any ramification, that they want out of the relationship at any time. Intentions can be good, but they’re just that – intentions. Nothing binds one to an intention. I’ve had lots of good intentions (like finishing up CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity, but decided to spend another hour on the computer instead). Intentions couldn’t hold a candle to wedding vows. Anyone who believes they could is just setting themselves and their significant other up for failure. It is not unfair to assume that most cohabitating couples are sexually active. But even if a couple was living together and not having sex, they still would be doing a disservice to their future union. There’s much more to marriage, especially when it comes to living together. Things can be quite different when the “escape clause” is removed.
Yes, and what about the openness to life…? Maybe I only knew the few cohabiting couples that contracept, but every one of them contracepted, or at least said they did.
And when they kept talking of an ancient way of living together, I thought they meant handfasting!
In Christ’s peace and joy,
Robin
Literally speaking, though, co-habitation is not a sin. I mean, obviously you can live with anyone, in a committed or uncommitted relationship w/o it being a sexual relationship. (think nuns, widowed sisters, lay Catholic communities, priests, elderly w/ caregiver, roommates, etc) But the definition of co-habitation has changed, and here’s where it gets tricky: if co-habitation were in the literal sense, I would consider it better for people to live together than alone, but the potential of abuse is so great today that it might actually be wrong to assume a non-sexual relationship between people living together. I dunno. What’s especially odd is when people want to live together under the ‘cohabition doesn’t MEAN sex’ umbrella, while at the same time, in their particular case, they ARE trying to justify a sexual relationship outside of marriage. But if we happen to observe that, then we’re obsessed with sex! These people may get what they want by the strategy of making the rest of us run around in the circles of their reasoning!
The gag reflex kicked in when I got to the bit about the Catholic Church’s teaching being based off “old research.” Yeah, back at Nicea, Constantine came in with some really wrongheaded graphs of divorce rates for cohabiting couples, and those bishops just went along with it without checking whether they were nuptial cohabitors or fornicating cohabitors.
Basically, this article is saying that the Sacrament of Matrimony is worthless and pointless. Despite being instituted by Christ and a channel of grace… don’t bother.
I found the line, it is open to fertility.� This describes the commitment not only of married spouses but also of nuptial cohabitors
because I’ve never known a cohabitating couple, nuptial or otherwise, to actually be open to life.
It is entirely appropriate to “narrowly focus on the sexual dimension” of such relationships, because that is the most sinful aspect – in addition, it scandalizes the entire flock. If a shepherd sees that one of his sheep has an open, infected wound, that could make his other sheep sick, he would be neglectful if he ignored it because the rest of that sheep looked good on the surface!
My brother was betrothed. I think that if they had decided to shack up at that point, the preist would have called off the wedding. If they can get themselves to a betrothal ceremony, and a betrothal ceremony is interchangeable with a marriage ceremony, why not just get hitched to begin with?
Mama Says
Yes, cohabiting is not necessarily a sin, if you aren’t sleeping together, but then it would be a source of scandal in our society, because most ARE sleeping together.
Example: Faithful Catholic couple lives chastely together before their marriage. They are engaged and are doing this to save money. They tell their friends, “we aren’t sleeping together; we are chaste because we love the Lord”. Friends answer, “riiiiight ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge'”. Then the friends tell others, “it’s ok to live together, my faithful Catholic friends who love the Lord do it!”
We’re not even talking about the intimacy of living together in everyday livingthat is improper before marriage. That’s another post.
My question also was, why marry anyway? If you’re already nuptual, what more do you have to gain? Why ever partake of the Sacrament? Also, does the Church regard other sacraments this way? Well, it was just a bath, but the perso had the intention to be baptized, maybe someday, though s/he didn’t know when and wasn’t really ready to accept everything that went along with baptism, so we can call it a “baptismal” rather than “non-baptismal” bathing experience. Huh? Well, the Baptist Church SAID it was just grape juice, but the person was thinking Catholic thoughts at the time, so surely it was enough like the Sacrament of Holy Communion to count. . . (Not that these are sins in the same way, but they’re not the real thing, either!!)
momof6, to put it in protestant terms, living together before marriage, even if you are being chaste, “blows your witness.”
I am SO ANGRY about this article–mostly because a friend of mine has recently started shacking up. And that is the correct term by the way, “shacked-up,” or as Jeff and my mother prefer, “fornicators,” which is needfully precise. This whole article turns on the idea that so-called “nuptial cohabiters” INTEND to get married. Isn’t the path to hell paved with such good intentions, or is that also from outdated research?? Last I checked, we are the Church of thought and deed–or prayer and sacrament, not the Church of [Good?] Intentions. I tried for a good 20 minutes to comment on that article through their site…you can’t. Where’s your dialogue now, ^%$&^* ?
This article is absolutely sickening. It seems like the moral relativists are grasping at anything to legitimize pre-marital sex. It’s not enough that Hollywood glorifies co-habitation (the sexual kind) and the lifestyle the author advocates; they want the Church to do the same. Perhaps a new church for them should be formed on some riverboat on the Hudson River. 🙂
My husband and I had to make many financial sacrifices to not cohabitate before marrige. Our one-year anniversary is next month! My parents even helped pay my rent. The financial burden was significant, but the sacrament of marriage was worth it. Now that we live together as husband and wife, I am amazed at the attachment that forms with lviing so closely to another. If we had cohabitated before marriage, I doubt we would have kept our commitment to chastity. I can see why many women (in my own experience) think of living together as “playing house”…until the relationship breaks up.
If only someone had discovered this distinction 40 years ago! My future hubby and all his buddies with girlfriends would have LOVED this excuse for doing something they KNEW was wrong back then. Good thing for me, we were unaware of this loophole, and didn’t have to worry about having a little bundle of joy before the wedding. How totally ridiculous.
About the authors of this piece:
Michael J. Lawler and Gail S. Risch are researchers at the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University, Nebraska, where they also teach theology. Lawler is director of the center. Both have written extensively about marriage and family.
Creighton is, of course, a Jesuit university.
Apparently they forgot to look at the divorce statistics with regard to their article. The reality is that couples that cohabitate, if they actually marry, overwhelmingly end in divorce.
Yeah, that’s growing in grace alright.
Just like this magazine is growing in grace. Where can I buy all the copies so I can, in all grace, burn them to dust?
If their co-habitation is so “nuptial” why can’t they just get married then?
I have some old research for you! There was a time when sin (fornication) was called sin. Lets see what St. Paul had to say, shall we…
from the first chapter to the Romans:
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but THEIR THINKING BECAME FUTILE AND THEIR FOOLLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images….
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 THEY EXCHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD FOR A LIE, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts…
As I noted over at Gerald’s, the authors of this article use the expression “A Modest Proposal” as the head of one of the sections. This is usually a clear signal that the piece is intended as satire. Granted, the whole thing does seem serious, but I wonder…could they actually be mocking this viewpoint?
Gary,
Generally, if one wants to signal that something is satire by calling it a “modest proposal,” one does it in the title, not in a section heading towards the end. Couple that with the earnestness and, as Jeff notes, the general moral liberalism of the publication, I think we are safe in taking it seriously. If it is a satire, it is downright encrypted.
Do they have to seek a decree of nullity before they can enter another “nuptial cohabitation?”
At the end of the “modest proposal” section, they specifically note that since the wedding didn’t happen, the “marriage” wasn’t consummated (in their view the wedding counts as consummation, not the marital act), and thus could be dissolved under canon law. Very convenient.
Typically progressive: in the face of a deranged culture, surrender and give it a blessing in the process.
I’m beginning to think that the only theological non-negotiable for a Catholic academic is tenure.
If a couple is living together, doesn’t the Church require them to live apart before they can be married? I know it doesn’t always work that way in reality.
“Literally speaking, though, co-habitation is not a sin.”
Who was that guy that said, “But I didn’t inhale”; everybody believed him too, right?
I was Episcopalian for 51 years so this kind of deception is nothing new to me. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be smart enough to avoid this kind of trap.
In faith, Dave
What do you all think about having an opposite sex roommate? I’m thinking of sharing an apartment with a good male friend and we’re both practicing Catholics. Would it necessarily be scandalous?
Yes, Teresa, it would be. Better to find a female co-habitator. 🙂
I second MissJean’s comment.
Also, the word verification thing scared me.
Teresa, it would be very scandalous.
What makes marriage, marriage? The exchanging of vows at the wedding free, total, faithful and fruitful and the consummation of those vows in the marital act.
Do you come here freely? Without reservation? Will you be faithful through think and thin (so to speak)? Will you lovingly accept the children God blesses you with? These vows are consummated in the marital act and should be renewed every time they enter into the marital act.
Can co-habitors truly be a mutual gift to each other when their state in life doesn’t reflect the total gift of self. Can you totally give yourself when there is no committment made? Can I say I love the Lord and still live as a Pagan? Don’t get me wrong we all sin but recognizing sin and working to eliminate it is the difference between someone who loves the Lord and someone who pays lip service to the Lord.
The body speaks a language or as JPII said the body is prophetic, a prophet being one that speaks the truth about God, so as co-habitators what type of prophet are they? Are they speaking truth or lies with their bodies? Might they be a false prophet.
Marriage is subtly (not so subtly to some) under attack even from within the Church. We must do everything we can to spread the truth. You realize we Catholics are the only ones who believe that Marriage is a Sacrament. We need good pre-Cana teaching on the truth of marriage.
John Paul II pray for us.
If it would be scandalous for Teresa to live with a male as a friend is it scandalous for a young adult to female to live with a young male peer who is uninterested in females? How can it be scandalous when no one is scandalized? That’s a real question, not an argument. If two people are living together and are OBVIOUSLY not (and couldn’t be, for reasons of age, family relationship, sexual orientation, etc) involved in a sexual relationship, where is the scandal?
I realize (having finally read the whole article) that this is NOT the sort of situation addressed by the article, (which is awful) but isn’t it also wrong, sometimes, to go around assuming that people are always looking for an excuse to sin? Some of this discussion reminds me of the initial teaching on safety guidelines with young children, where educators were told that to “herd” students by the shoulder was the equivalent of molestation, and priests were criticized for greeting parishioners with a hug.
Regarding the “but I didn’t inhale” comment, i offer the comical truth that some people do NOT inhale. I actually have an older sister who is a sometime smoker and has NEVER inhaled. I’m surprised she still has a lining in her nose. Oddly, she THINKS she’s inhaling and when she’s in smoking mode, she’s just as addicted as any other smoker…
Hmmm. There could be a lesson in that example…
With all this talk about loving (“nuptial”)cohabitors and non-loving ones, I think the recent scandal over the computer game
“Resistance: the Fall of Man” is worth examining. The C of E recently denounced the game in question for using a likeness of Manchester Cathedral as a setting for a violent confrontation involving the game’s protagonist. The C of E, which typically abstains from denouncing moral transgressions of any kind, wants an apology and (hmmm!) a cut of the profits, err, I mean a “donation”. Now, in light of the story above, I think the C of E is being too hasty. It should first form a focus group to determine whether the game designers lovingly used the image of Manchester Cathedral (and whether those who play the game will grow
“perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace”). I, for one am willing to give the game designers some leeway. The game, according to Amazon.com, has U.S and British forces banding together
“…in a last-ditch effort to save England from a horric scourge — the Chimera. This parasitic species infects other life forms with a virus that rapidly mutates victims into new Chimera. In mere decades this race has ripped apart populations across Asia and Europe and by 1951 has landed on the shores of England. You play the part of US a Army Ranger, fighting alongside a group of British resistance soldiers to free the country from the Chimera and to halt their spread across the globe.”
What could be more agreeable? I think the appropriate response is for us to buy the game and play it before making a hasty judgement. In that spirit I have added it to my Amazon shopping cart.
The appropriate response to a game or movie like that described by John is something which can’t be stated in polite company. Sheeeeeesh!!! It has to be supernaturally bloody before it’s fun???
Having just read a 1926 satire (G. Walter Stonier) re beer being everything,
..”The whole life of a child (of either sex) is actuated by Beer. The first action of which a child is capable is a lusty yell; we have established that this is no less than a cry for Beer, or at any rate for some kind of drink. The next action of the child is to drink. If it does not drink beer it is because its system is not yet capable of drinking beer. But behind the relish of milk is the desire for beer…”
thus I was predisposed to thinking John’s comments were figurative, but I could be wrong.
Joanne, as much as I appreciate Devil’s advocacy, I was just answering Teresa’s question sincerely and based on experience. I’ve lived with male relatives and friends, including gay friends. I even lived in a frat house before I returned to the Church, I lived in a frat house. Although I didn’t have sex with anyone there, it was perfectly natural for others to believe that I was and had several Christian friends who took me aside to talk to me about the temptations (not just sex) that such a situation presented. Probably the worst situation, incidentally, was a summer when I shared a house with gay friends who, strangely enough, suddenly became “curious” about sex with women.
So what exactly is your question, Joanne? You want a definition of “scandal”? Or do you want to discuss if people are overly cautious about child molestation? (Because I can discuss that, too. I’m a public school teacher.) If so, please feel free to e-mail me.
I have thought a lot about this issue, for a few reasons. One is that I once distorted actual Catholic documents to try to convince my girlfriend of the time that it was ok to have sex and cohabitate and such. This was before I converted, though – both in heart and in religious affiliation.
I’ve also thought about it a lot since then due to several close friends involved in some of these situations. JoAnne does have several good points, as do those who look at it in the other way. It is all a matter of qualifying.
That being said, there are some real problems with the idea of determining morality based purely on scandal. One is the tremendous degree to which homosexuality has become a part of our culture. Two males living together can be cause for scandal in some cases just as much as a male and a female. I’m not saying here that a couple ought to go ahead and live chastely together and say to heck with what people think. Temptation is a huge issue, of course, and the scandal is, too.
The problem is that what actually constitutes scandal is changing, and in many ways it is changing almost as quickly as technology does as the culture in which we live changes.
Then, of course, I believe that there is a principle of moral theology that would hold that a person must do what is reasonable to avoid scandal but not what is unreasonable (though this can be meritorious in some cases). For example, it is not necessary for a person to refrain fromthe Rosary because it may scandalize some Protestants. Catholics insist they are not worshipping Mary, but some Protestants actually think that this is a lie. One is not bound to respect the unreasonableness of such an individual.
So is it reasonable to expect people to believe one when he explains – as was the case of an individual I am acquainted with – that his girlfriend is staying with him because she has lost her housing and is currently looking for a place to live? Or must one avoid this situation for fear of scandal? I’m not intending to provide answers here, simply to introduce the questions that are very pertinent.
Or, in a case more similar to what we are discussing, should a young bachelor refuse to offer his sister the couch for the night when she is in town for business because some might be scandalized? Is he obligated to show her license to the neighbors if they respond to his claims that she is his sister with *wink wink nudge nudge*?
We are not bound by the unreasonableness of others. Is it unreasonable to believe that a person you consider to be a devout Catholic is lying when he says he is not having sexual relations with a significant other? This is a question which is important, not simply because of this issue, but because of what I alluded to earlier about the shifts in culture. More and more perfectly legitimate behaviors are becoming cause for scandal. This is going to become question that we all have to answers about different things in the somewhat near future (barring a drastic change in the direction of our society).
I’m not defending cohabitation, and by no means am I encouraging couples to participate in “nuptual cohabitation” or whatever nonsense that article was talking about. What I am doing is looking to introduce some ideas to possibly illustrate that this is not an issue that has clear answers. For example, if given a situation to either chastely house a significant other who has nowhere else to live or to leave them to themselves for fear of scandal, what is one to do? I just think that, pastorally speaking, this issue requires clear and thorough thinking. It requires firm stances, too, and a firm adherence to all the appropriate tenants of Catholic morals.
I am posting without my name because I am not anxious for people who know me now to know what I did two decades ago. My husband and I both lived together for three or four months before we married, although after we were engaged, so I have personal knowledge of this.
There really is a difference between people who are living together for what they consider to be practical motives and those who are just living together to “see what it’s like” or without any plan to marry at all. That said, I would never recommend it to anyone. The reasons we thought were practical and obvious were just the general cultural atmosphere, they were not really anything we had deeply considered. NO ONE told us not to do it, although several people expressed some discomfort about it. No, we did not have a Catholic wedding, we were not practicing at the time.
I can tell you there was an immediate and large difference in our feelings and our commitment to each other after our wedding. Being married is NOT the same as living together. Young couples who just “go with the flow” and think they are experiencing the same as a marital relationship need to be told that it’s just not so!
If we had it all to do again we would not “live together.” It really is just shacking up, and this is the voice of experience. It did not ruin my life or what is a wonderful marriage, but it was just a sham that was settling for so much less than what we now have.
Shane: You make good points, especially about meeting unreasonable expectations. Of course, that opens the question as to what is reasonable. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, the old rules had a lot of wisdom.
When I was younger I might have said to a lady sleeping over that she was safe, and I might even have tried to keep my word, but… ^_^. So, there is definite reason for all those old-fashioned expectations and standards. The change now is that in this day two GUYS sharing a room can easily be suspect. Or two girls.
One solution, when your girlfriend is thrown out of her place and suddenly needs somewhere to stay, is chaperoneage. That allows you to meet your obligation with not even a hint of scandal. That’s an ancient solution which still works well. A person should always be conscious of possible scandal and always take reasonable measures to prevent it.
We are not to cause our brothers to stumble.
In faith, Dave
Interestingly, though scandal is indeed given when a girl shares a flat with a man, the same doesn’t seem to be true when the numbers are enlarged. My son, in his second year at Oxford, is sharing a student house with five others, three girls and two boys: they each have their own room, and the kitchen/sitting area is common. Most of them are Christians – no one (including me) seems to be scandalised, or has even commented on the situation, which is quite normal. Or am I just being naive?
Comments are closed.