Cohabitating Vs Living Together

[CrossCuT]

I found a source that said cohabitation is when two unmarried peoples living together engaging in the tango. The church is obviously against this since any unmarried tangoing is tisk tisk. But what about just living together without doing the tango? Does that still purchase you a one way ticket to Sheol? 

 

I guess I never realized that cohabitation was a very specific term, I thought it was just living together in general. What is the objection to living together in a chaste way besides increasing the possibility of the tango?

Is it just that people are afraid youll do that? Or is it because, as the link states, there is no benefits?

 

 

Ironically, empirical research has confirmed that cohabiting couples actually fare worse in the areas of finances, intimacy, and stability. In regards to intimacy, couples are correct that their desire to fully and freely give themselves to one another is a good thing. The problem is that this desire becomes disordered when that full and free gift of sexual union and domestic partnership are coupled with the partial and transitory conditions of cohabitation.

 

So is marriage a magical switch that makes your fiances get better and make you a more stable couple? I guess Im having a hard time understanding the justification...seems more like a "Dont you dare have sex!" sort of thing. 

 

Thoughts? comments? Concerns? 

[superblue]

I imagine some would say it is just inviting temptation to live with someone you are dating, to end up in a sexual relationship....

 

I don't bother with statistics, surveys or sources, as it is all subjective and to easily fixed to be sided to favor a specific idea or outcome instead of just being a neutral fact.

 

I suspect everyone knows that Marriage is not the answer to what ever that source you found, I think one would know just because one is married it doesn't lessen financial woes or other worries that happen in life.

 

Marriage is a Sacrament.

 

Now if ya wana debate is it okay to have a roommate of the opposite sex whom you are not dating or physically attracted to and neither are sexually attracted to each other and have no intention of having sex,,, I dunno what the problem would be with that.

 

Why would that be considered some kind of sin ?

 

 

 

 

the obvious problems that arise is what if one has a child and the other roommate doesn't, or what if one is in a relationship an the other isn't and who gets the apt or home to themselves when they want privacy with their partner..

 

 

Though I do like that last part, " Don't you dare have sex ! "

 

Should be a Catholic motto, just gotta add more to it,  " Don't you dare have sex, until you are married and only if you use NFP or intend on having a child whom will be baptized or else may God have mercy on your damned souls. "

 

 

Makes ya wonder exactly how many people could be allowed to be baptized and or confirmed if there was some kind of new rule instituted that unless you are a virgin you cant be a Catholic ever.  Sounds asinine ? So does waiting till one is married to have intercourse, and the psychological and emotional problems that can develop ( not do, do would insinuate that it is happens definitively ) More over what if there was a rule that stated if you have premarital sex you and are catholic you are automatically excommunicated.  Again sounds asinine, but it is all perspective.  And then trying to balance faith and following Christ, versus Church law, and Church made up laws to maintain power goes on an on.

 

 

perhaps another question is why would a dating couple who are catholic, engage in premarital sex in the first place ( knowing it is sinful and or not allowed ) then live together on top of that and still have premarital sex..... make it even worse AND still think they are good Christians and go to mass together on Sunday.

 

Versus

 

those who are not catholic, and do the exact same thing minus going to mass .

 

 

6 one way half a dozen the other seems it is up to the individual to use all information given to them by the Church, and their own common sense that the Good Lord gave them through Free Will and do the best they can with it, roll the dice and hope for the best when judgement day comes that what ever faith they have is good enough.

[Credo in Deum]

Contrary to popular belief the Church is not against pleasure.  It is against the abuse of pleasure.   All things have a proper time and place. For instance there is a time to laugh, a time to cry, a time to fight, and etc.  Likewise there is also a time to tango and that time is when you're married.  This is because sex (being an act of love) is only used properly when two persons are living the vocation (marriage) which Love itself (God) instituted for the continuation of love (unity of husband and wife, and children).   Why is this so important to the Church?  Well it's because sex can actually be a means of obtaining graces from God when used properly, and the fact that so many people miss out on this is truly sad.  

 

Living together is not allowed, even for chaste couples because it provides an occasion of sin and because it is two people living a life only married people should live.  People who say "but we will always be chaste" are prideful since they do not take into account their fallen nature and that no one is chaste without the grace of God and God will not provide the graces necessary to protect chastity if you willfully thrown yourself in an occasion of sin by having a relationship which is not according to His will.  

[CrossCuT]

I don't bother with statistics, surveys or sources, as it is all subjective and to easily fixed to be sided to favor a specific idea or outcome instead of just being a neutral fact.

Yeah that is my general feeling. It seems like the actual sin to be committed is premarital sex. Unless near occasions of sin are equal to the actual sin?

 

 

Should be a Catholic motto, just gotta add more to it,  " Don't you dare have sex, until you are married and only if you use NFP or intend on having a child whom will be baptized or else may God have mercy on your damned souls. "

 

Rofl! That is pretty spot on!

 

 

 

 

Makes ya wonder exactly how many people could be allowed to be baptized and or confirmed if there was some kind of new rule instituted that unless you are a virgin you cant be a Catholic ever.  Sounds asinine ? So does waiting till one is married to have intercourse, and the psychological and emotional problems that can develop ( not do, do would insinuate that it is happens definitively ) More over what if there was a rule that stated if you have premarital sex you and are catholic you are automatically excommunicated.  Again sounds asinine, but it is all perspective.  And then trying to balance faith and following Christ, versus Church law, and Church made up laws to maintain power goes on an on.

Yeah I think the general psychological. divorce, and what not scares the church uses to prevent people form living together are very subjective. There is no all encompassing rule in what a person can and cant handle. 

 

But you bring up some interesting things to ponder. Thank you for your response!

 

 

Contrary to popular belief the Church is not against pleasure.  It is against the abuse of pleasure.   All things have a proper time and place. For instance there is a time to laugh, a time to cry, a time to fight, and etc. 

 

Oh! Yeah I agree with that! Do you agree with that?

 

 

 

Living together is not allowed, even for chaste couples because it provides an occasion of sin and because it is two people living a life only married people should live.

Is a near occasion of sin equal to the sin itself? 

[Credo in Deum]

 

 

Is a near occasion of sin equal to the sin itself? 

 

Willfully putting ones self in an occasion of sin is itself a mortal sin, so who cares if it's equal or not?  Both have the ability to take away eternal life. 

[CrossCuT]

Mortal sins are bad. We should all avoid our near occasions of sin!

[Nihil Obstat]

Mortal sins are bad. We should all avoid our near occasions of sin!

Precisely. And under pain of mortal sin, we must especially avoid all near occasions of mortal sin. So couples absolutely should not live together before marriage, whether or not they like to dance.

[CrossCuT]

 So couples absolutely should not live together before marriage, whether or not they like to dance.

 

:hehe2:

[Benedictus]

If they are effectively living like flat mates then maybe.  It's all about risk, boundaries and intention I think. It's not like people need to live together to have sex if that's what they set out to do.  Living together could allow a dating couple to see how they get along without getting intimate. But I think that living in close quarters would be difficult if they have a romantic interest in eachother. I don't think I could do it successfully, but maybe others honestly could. Maybe a set time of living together, like a couple of months, would be a better goal. After that they could see if marriage is ever a likely option. If not then they can move on with a clean conscience. I think there'd need to be a review or time period to prevent it drifting. They'd both have to be very commtted to setting and sticking to any pre agreed boundaries though. Intentions are good in theory, living them out is hard. So I'd be very cautious about getting into such a situation in the first place.

[Anastasia13]

If they are effectively living like flat mates then maybe.  It's all about risk, boundaries and intention I think. It's not like people need to live together to have sex if that's what they set out to do.  Living together could allow a dating couple to see how they get along without getting intimate. But I think that living in close quarters would be difficult if they have a romantic interest in eachother. I don't think I could do it successfully, but maybe others honestly could. Maybe a set time of living together, like a couple of months, would be a better goal. After that they could see if marriage is ever a likely option. If not then they can move on with a clean conscience. I think there'd need to be a review or time period to prevent it drifting. They'd both have to be very commtted to setting and sticking to any pre agreed boundaries though. Intentions are good in theory, living them out is hard. So I'd be very cautious about getting into such a situation in the first place.

I don't think you have to live as flatmates to see how well you would get along living together. Maybe just crashing on a couch or something on a weekend, and a LOT of communication about each other and life and whatever. After that, some adaptation will be needed when marrying, but the question is not is it something easy that you can handle right away, it are you committed to doing what it takes to make it work when you do marry.

[Credo in Deum]

If they are effectively living like flat mates then maybe.  It's all about risk, boundaries and intention I think. It's not like people need to live together to have sex if that's what they set out to do.  Living together could allow a dating couple to see how they get along without getting intimate. But I think that living in close quarters would be difficult if they have a romantic interest in eachother. I don't think I could do it successfully, but maybe others honestly could. Maybe a set time of living together, like a couple of months, would be a better goal. After that they could see if marriage is ever a likely option. If not then they can move on with a clean conscience. I think there'd need to be a review or time period to prevent it drifting. They'd both have to be very commtted to setting and sticking to any pre agreed boundaries though. Intentions are good in theory, living them out is hard. So I'd be very cautious about getting into such a situation in the first place.

 

No, those who have romantic interests should not try this.  Moving in together as a "trial run" before marriage is not allowed. Using this excuse demonstrates that these people are more concerned with comfort and convenience than with the reality of marriage which is one of love and sacrifice.  Comfort and convenience should not be the primary motives for marriage.  Plus these people would not be giving it a real trial run since their situation would not come with the same obligations as a married couple.   The "trail run" is an excuse to do something they shouldn't be doing.  Furthermore their "trail run" would still give off the appearance that they're "shacking up" together and this can cause scandal.  

 

 

Obviously two people who are not romantically involved and have no plans on sleeping with each other would be OK, since this is called roommates. 

[CrossCuT]

You know, arent couples always in a near occasion of sin? Whenever they are around each other, technically? I mean, you dont need to be living together to want to do the tango...so would dating anyone thus be a mortal sin?

 

And dont people praise couples who spend 90% of their time oogling each other but not having sex? Oh what a righteous, holy couple! But I am sure they are fending off that urge all the time. Wouldnt simply being around your significant other be putting you knowingly into a near occasion of sin? I mean, you might think lustful thoughts, kiss lustfully, or hold hands lustfully.

 

Besides, the assumption that believes 100% of couples who cohabitation dont actually understand the love and commitment of marriage is a bunch of poo. And yeah, it totally is about convenience for people, nothing wrong with that. 

 

 

So in my mind, if couples are able to spend a lot of time together and resist having sex despite the near occasion of sin, then I dont see how people would get their panties twisted over living together before marriage while remaining chaste. 

[truthfinder]

whether or not they like to dance.

And all this time I thought it was the scrabble playing that was problematic.

[Credo in Deum]

You know, arent couples always in a near occasion of sin?

 

No they're not. 

 

 

Whenever they are around each other, technically?

 

No. 

 

I mean, you dont need to be living together to want to do the tango

 

True. 

 

...so would dating anyone thus be a mortal sin?

 

No it wouldn't be.  It's called courtship and it can be done without putting ones self in an occasion of sin.   Sure it's hard work, but hard work pays off and anything worth having is worth working for. 

 

And dont people praise couples who spend 90% of their time oogling each other but not having sex?

 

No, I have never seen anyone praised for oogling.   

 

Oh what a righteous, holy couple! But I am sure they are fending off that urge all the time.

 

No.  Feeling the urge is not the sin. Entertaining the urge, approving it out of wedlock, and acting on it before you're married is the sin.  Living in an environment which promotes those three things is putting ones self in an occasion of sin.  

 

Wouldnt simply being around your significant other be putting you knowingly into a near occasion of sin?

 

No, however,  If someone is nonstop lusting then this is a big red flag and an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

I mean, you might think lustful thoughts, kiss lustfully, or hold hands lustfully.

 

Then you would be doing these things for the wrong reason.   One can do all of these thing legitimately and not lust.  Don't confuse lust with love or love with lust.  The two are not the same. 

 

Besides, the assumption that believes 100% of couples who cohabitation dont actually understand the love and commitment of marriage is a bunch of poo.  And yeah, it totally is about convenience for people, nothing wrong with that.

 

Marriages are not about convenience they're about love.  Love is very inconvenient. Case in point,  to love God means you cannot practice cohabitation.  Inconvenient for you.  Love requires a dying to self.  If convenience is your primary motive then this means you're selfish.  Selfishness kills relationships.    

 

So in my mind, if couples are able to spend a lot of time together and resist having sex despite the near occasion of sin, then I dont see how people would get their panties twisted over living together before marriage while remaining chaste.

 

I would suggest you rethink your position.  Couples can spend a lot of time with each other and not be in occasion of sin.  One way of doing this is by meeting in public places with friends or other situations which help reduce this risk.  Doing things to reduce and remove the risk is not the same as putting oneself in an occasion of sin.  However, living together is the opposite.  There is a lot of private time and plenty of places to slip up.  Especially since no one is present to hold you accountable (except God who will hold you accountable on the day of Judgement).  A person who would willfully put themselves in such a situation, would be putting themselves in an occasion of sin.    

[CrossCuT]

No they're not. 

 

 

 

No. 

 

 

 

Cool! THen people living together arent always in near occasions of sin either. Stay consistent Credo. 

 

 

No it wouldn't be.  It's called courtship and it can be done without putting ones self in an occasion of sin.   Sure it's hard work, but hard work pays off and anything worth having is worth working for. 

 

Courtship, dating. Same thing. So why is it hard work if they arent in an occasion of sin? Isnt it hard work because they are in an occasion of sin and they work against it? cmon Credo

 

 

 

 

No.  Feeling the urge is not the sin. Entertaining the urge, approving it out of wedlock, and acting on it before you're married is the sin. 

Right so, the urges come from being in a near occasion of sin. And youre right! The urges arent sinful. So living together with that urge while no acting on it is not sinful. Cmon Credo.

 

 

 

 Living in an environment which promotes those three things is putting ones self in an occasion of sin.  

Spedning time together while not "living together" in the same house is still living together. You see your significant other very frequently so who does adding four walls and a roof suddenly render the situation unavoidable and sin ridden?

 

 

Marriages are not about convenience they're about love.  Love is very inconvenient. Case in point,  to love God means you cannot practice cohabitation.  Inconvenient for you.  Love requires a dying to self.  If convenience is your primary motive then this means you're selfish.  Selfishness kills relationships.       

Marriage is about live, correct! Bravo! Making the choice to live together is a personal variable that is hinged on convenience. Has nothing to do with their commitment to marriage. Saying that all people who choose to live together before marriage means they are uncommitted and cray cray is stupid and illogical. Its highly subjective and you cannot be any judge of their personal relationship. 

 

 

 

 

I would suggest you rethink your position. 

Dont need to. You havent made any sense. You are going in circles and being very inconsistent. You have provided nothing logical to support your stance and you seem to think that a house is a magical being that renders people lustful, mortal sinners, that are prideful and uncommitted. rofl.

 

One thing I suggest is thinking about it with an open mind, without judgment, and not simply believing it because thats what youve always been told. Gotta use that mushy 3lb thing in the skull. 

 

 

 

 Couples can spend a lot of time with each other and not be in occasion of sin.  

YES! And a house is not a magical entity that turns your statment to "Couple who spend time together in a house are always in an occasion of sin." Do you see how derpy your stance is?

 

 

 

One way of doing this is by meeting in public places with friends or other situations which help reduce this risk.  Doing things to reduce and remove the risk is not the same as putting oneself in an occasion of sin.  However, living together is the opposite.  There is a lot of private time and plenty of places to slip up.  Especially since no one is present to hold you accountable (except God who will hold you accountable on the day of Judgement).  A person who would willfully put themselves in such a situation, would be putting themselves in an occasion of sin. 

You should put anti fornication signs up in public places and make all the girls dress in potato sacks and the guys dress in onies. Eliminate any sort of potential sexual attraction. Maybe there is some way we can burn down all homes....then no one would be in the near occasion of sin EVER!

 

Dude, you live in a world of make believe. Sorry. But nothing you said makes any sense. Sorry brah.

Edited August 9, 2014 by CrossCuT