A reader writes:
Hi Jimmy,
Didn’t want to post this question in the comment box in light of rule #20 —
Regarding cohabitation without conjugal relations — is this a mortal sin in of itself, or a near occasion of sin? I had thought the latter, but I’m really unsure..
Don’t worry. This wouln’t be a Rule 20 violation. It’s just a question.
The moral disorder of cohabitation is twofold:
1) It puts the parties (assuming they are normal heterosexuals who are not closely related to each other) in the proximate occasion of sin. Depending on the degree of temptation they experience, this evil is more or less grave. If (theoretically speaking) there is zero temptation then there is no proximity to the occasion of sin and thus (theoretically) no evil in this regard. On the other hand, if the temptation to physical or mental unchastity is grave then the evil in this regard is grave.
2) It can be the cause of scandal. The example that the couple sets may lead others to suppose that what they are doing (living together) or what they are perceived as doing (having conjugal relations outside of marriage) are morally licit–or sufficiently morally licit that others are more inclined to do the same thing(s). The gravity of the evil in this case is determined by the likelihood and the intensity of the scandal that may result (e.g., how many people will be affected by the couple’s example, how likely it is that they will be tempted to do something they shouldn’t, and what precisely that is–whether it is cohabiting or having conjugal relations, which may lead to STDs or pregnancy, which may lead to contraception or abortion, etc., etc., etc.)
Hi Jimmy!
If you have a cohabiting couple that aren’t engaging in conjugal relations, do they become morally responsible for the misperceptions of others?
If you have a cohabiting couple that aren’t engaging in conjugal relations, do they become morally responsible for the misperceptions of others?
If the “misperception” is reasonable and they do nothing to correct it, then yes.