Cohabitation is a smack in the face …

… Working in real estate affords me a candid peek into different types of living arrangements, many of which are considered unconventional. You’d think I’d be used to some things having been in this business close to a decade. But I will never ever get used to the well meaning parents who casually co-sign for their children to cohabitate with their significant others. That, that right there blows my mind.

I cannot even begin to count the number of bright young girls who’ve sat at this desk across from me dumbly smiling because they believe they’re taking their relationship to the “next level”. As a former dumb girl, their naivete I can excuse. The parents, on the other hand, should know better. Should expect better.

What in the world compels a parent, who’s supposed to have their child’s best interest in mind, to not only allow such a potentially destructive living situation to exist but to literally hand them the keys to do so?

Parents, you can tell your kids “no”. In fact it’s prudent to do so frequently. It’s also ok, parents, if your kids get mad at you. I promise they will speak to you again, especially when they need something… the little beggars. What’s that you say? They are over 18 and will do what they want to and you’re powerless to stop them. True. Sort of. If they are hell bent on playing house you most certainly are under no obligation to help them along the way. You don’t have to pay their rent or give them an allowance or help them get a lease when they don’t qualify on their own.

I see these parents come in with their children and their children’s lovers and act like them living together is the most natural thing in the world. And 9 times out of 10 in a few short months one of them will be at my desk crying to break the lease because the other was a jerk face. Or someone ends up pregnant. Or quits school. And all manner of completely avoidable drama.

Then I become the bad guy when all parties are stuck in the legally binding lease agreement that just a few months ago everybody was all hunkey-dory to sign.

Lookit… young ladies. Moving in your boyfriend is not the “next level”. It does not guarantee an engagement ring in the near future. In fact, it typically has the opposite effect. And those couples that do go on to get married have a higher divorce rate than those who didn’t live together before marriage.

And this crap I keep hearing that you can’t really know someone till you live with them first, like a trial marriage, is ludicrous. That needs to stop right now. Do you hear yourself? Why on earth would you entertain the idea of marriage with someone you don’t fully trust? You don’t really trust them now do you; or why else would you make living together before marriage, just to see how things go, a prerequisite. If a man asks you to move in with him the proper response is to be horrified and insulted. Parents too. Completely horrified and insulted.

Here, let me translate the term “shacking up” to you in man-speak … “I like you well enough, but not quite well enough to marry. Not yet. In fact, I’m not really sure how I feel about you. I do know that I like you well enough to have sex with and for you to wash my stained underwear and pay half the bills, but not quite well enough to fully commit to you in marriage.”

How charming.

Cohabitation is a smack in the face and if a girl is too much in loooooove to see that it becomes the parent’s immediate responsibility to plainly say so.

I swear. Some days you just want to shake people.

/end rant.

Reese Gone Wild...
Stay at home moms, stop saying you don't work...
Whatsamatta, St. Ann? You got selective hearing?
When did lunch time become so complicated...
About Katrina Fernandez

Mackerel Snapping Papist

  • Leticia Velasquez

    I hear you. I used to rent a property and turned down tenants who were not married. They had NO idea what my objection was. None whatsoever. I wanted to say, “i object to watching a woman get used and tossed away like an old shoe.” Wish I had the guts.

    • BrandonUB

      Word to the wise – you’re violating federal fair housing statutes, and if the wrong people catch wind of it, you’ll be in a mess. I wouldn’t recommend attaching your name to comments like that.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I’d love to take the government to court over that one.

  • Marcy Wollard

    I has been my experience, watching friends who have bought houses with their boyfriends, that they wind up broke and homeless and sometimes with a child. Nobody seems to tell them the statistics that cohabitators have a much greater chance of breakup then those who don’t move in together.

    And these arrangements seem to rarely move onto marriage because why bother with the “piece of paper” when we are already doing all those things without it. We still love each other. But in reality – and we do live in reality – that piece of paper really does mean something important. It means I’m willing to sacrifice for you, to love you, to do anything for you because you are important to me and our love transcends just feeling good.

    If he won’t even bother to get “the piece of paper,” he probably won’t bother to be there when you really need him – and he probably won’t be there when your kids need him. Marriage is commitment and that commitment is needed to get through life’s bad periods – which will be many. Marriage is no guarantee he won’t cut and run when stuff gets hard, but really, if he won’t marry you when things are great, he won’t be around when things are hard.

    • Katrina Fernandez

      that entire last paragraph FTW.

    • BrandonUB

      I has been my experience, watching friends who have bought houses with
      their boyfriends, that they wind up broke and homeless and sometimes
      with a child.

      I have close friends that cohabitated and got married that are together happily, and friends that married and then moved in together that are now divorced. Anecdotes are irrelevant.

      Nobody seems to tell them the statistics that cohabitators
      have a much greater chance of breakup then those who don’t move in

      People might not tell them that simply to avoid being liars.

      • Jennifer Gutleber

        Actually the statistics for the United States anyway, do bear that out. I’ve read the studies – peer reviewed secular studies – that show that those who live together before marriage have a much higher rate of divorce than those who do not. If I remember correctly those who live together after getting engaged have a 67% chance and those who shack up without any commitment beyond shacking up have an 87% chance. From what I understand that last statistic is now higher, at about 92% Now since the divorce rate is high anyway some may wonder why it matters. Some will tell you that they know people who lived together for years before marrying and are going strong. I know those couples too. More power to them. They beat the odds, but the bottom line is that if you live together before marriage, your chances of divorce are substantially higher.

      • James H, London

        Why would that make them liars? In Britain, the likelihood of divorce after cohabitation and marriage is about 60% greater than those couples who didn’t cohabit. This isn’t rocket science, nor is it ideology: just fact.

        As with so many other trendy talking points: just because you know an exception doesn’t disprove the rule.

  • Dale

    I agree that the rise in the cohabitation rate is not a good thing. And, as with Katrina, I have been surprised when the parents of 20-somethings apparently support such an arrangement.

    However, I was puzzled by the final paragraphs of this article. Is it really a matter of women being treated unfairly? From the little I have observed, the women who cohabit actually prefer it to marriage, which they see as a needless complication which may restrict their future choices.

    I think cohabitation is a mistake. But since women are able to economically stand on their own feet, and since there is no longer shame in being a single mother, are women being exploited by cohabitation any more than men are?

    • Katrina Fernandez

      True and good points. Yes, women are still exploited, even if they willingly agree to that exploitation. It’s out of ignorance that they agree to allow themselves to be short changed on the relationship front.

      • Lisa Twaronite

        I have to differ here. It wasn’t out of ignorance that my partner and I lived together before we legally married — it was because I refused to marry him until I was more sure that we could live together without any deal-breaking conflicts arising.
        Neither of us was ever “ignorant,” nor “shortchanged” in any way, and I am now counseling my sons and daughter that although they ought to do what is ultimately correct for themselves and future partners, their father and I are an excellent example of the benefits of cohabitation.
        I understand, though, that it’s not right for every couple, and that religious beliefs sometimes rule it out.

        • Katrina Fernandez

          It strikes me as unwise and unsafe to agree to live something on such an intimate level while being unsure about them.

          • Lisa Twaronite

            I was sure I wanted to live with him — not so sure, when I realized that he was as messy as I am a clean freak, but we eventually worked that out. You say that in 9 out of 10 of your anecdotal cases, the young cohabitators split — maybe we were that one out of 10? Anyway, as I said, I know it’s not right for everyone — I just wanted to chime in with my two cents and say that I wasn’t ignorant or exploited.

          • Maureen O’Brien

            Of course we’re glad that it worked out for you. I know quite a few people for whom it did. I know more for whom it ended up with two shattered lives, or a woman or man left behind in tears when “someone better” came along.

            So let’s say there’s a drag-racing track built with a finish line that’s right in front of the edge of a thousand-foot cliff. 9 out of 10 cars don’t manage to brake before going over the edge, but the 10th has a little better brakes, or possibly manages to jump over to the next cliff.

            It can be done by some, and we are happy for them. But it would be better to race on a better-designed track and not take the chance.

          • Katrina Fernandez

            I appreciate your comment. I’m glad your marriage worked out. You are clearly the exception and not the rule. :)

  • Sophie Bean

    I want to print this out and hand it around. It is so true.

  • Maurisa Mayerle

    Preach it sister! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  • nitnot

    Those parents probably did it when they were young and think it is just “what everybody does.”

  • bob cratchit

    I agree with this post however there are situations our young adult children find theselves in right or wrong. Is it always wrong to help them out for the sake of others involved peripherally such as children? Some kids may grow up with every good catechsim lesson and wise councel but still make bad choices. When it comes down to it parents still help them with genuine needs without approving of their lifestyles.

    • Katrina Fernandez

      Yes. Kids will make profoundly horrific choices but that doesn’t mean we need to help or condone those choices. In this case… not co-signing for a lease.

  • Katrina Fernandez

    Most women do prefer marriage to cohabitation. This is a fact of our gender. And of course neither of you are eager to rush into marriage, you are already “dabbling” in it. Four years and no proposal? Sounds like he doesn’t think of you very highly.

    • Nick

      Now that’s not even close to fair. You can’t judge someone without knowing their situation. In fact, you’re not allowed to judge someone period. How are you going to feel when you’ve been seeing someone for, oh, I don’t know, 2 years (because apparently four years without a proposal means your relationship is a poor one) and you haven’t lived together, then suddenly you’re married and living together and you realize your partner does things you despise and the living conditions are not as you expected. Sucks, since you’re now married. You also say women preferring marriage to cohabitation is a fact? How do you know that it’s a fact? Just because it is true for you and true for other women does not mean it is true for all women. It’s not always a fact. Stop trying to sound so high and mighty and get over the actual fact that some people prefer living together before marriage and it’s not a problem. It’s not affecting you in any way, so stay out of it.

      • Katrina Fernandez

        I said “most” not “all”. I also never refuted the idea that some people, selfish and immature people, do prefer living together over marriage. People preferring something doesn’t require me to condone it. And as for not affecting me… did you read the article? No, probably not. You just wanted to dive right in and call me high and mighty.


        • Lisa Twaronite

          Sorry, just wanted to chime in again and say that the people who prefer living together to marriage aren’t always selfish and immature. Some surely are, but not all.

      • Christine~Soccer Mom

        Do people really not discuss stuff before they get married? Maybe the divorce rate is my answer to that.

        I knew most of my husband’s annoying habits before we got married because we spent lots of time together and discussed everything from parenting to bank accounts to working to children to moving for jobs to what church we’d attend with our family – all while dating. If people would actually discuss things that are going to come up during the course of one’s married life, it gets a lot out of the way.

        And, yes, lots of people can probably point to “it worked for us to shack up,” but there is a serial shacking-up mentality that goes on, and it really is a way that people use each other.

        And, frankly, it does affect us all to have family life disintegrating because marriage is seen as temporary if it’s not working out, or even as something to slide into after living together. The studies don’t lie: it’s bad for relationships, it’s bad for the children who come of it. Sure, it’s possible that all will be well in the end (if we’re leaving out the entire spiritual component), but those are the exceptions to the rule.

      • NHILLM

        Who would prefer giving up the free, total, faithful, and fruitful love of marriage (as it is meant to be) for cohabitation? Simply put: those that don’t understand marriage. Can a cohabitating couple have a good relationship, build trust, and love one another? Sure. Can a marriage have an awful relationship, lose trust, and despise one another? You bet. Marriage is no walk in the park. It’s meant to be an intimate public commitment that holds the relationship of the man and the woman bound to their vows of free, total, faithful, and fruitful love. When life gets hard, the married couple is meant to look back to their vows and work at strengthening them; to look to the friends, family, and community (those that witnessed their vows) for support and counsel. The cohabitating couple, on the other hand, can just call it quits, with fewer “strings” attached. Both couples will experience similar emotional, physical, and mental attachments because of the very nature of our human sexuality. This doesn’t negate the very real experiences of any couple. Judging the methods of relationships is not the problem. You are right, living together before marriage is not the problem, it’s the symptom of an even bigger problem.

      • JoAnna Wahlund

        Actually, you are mistaken. Catholics can judge, and moreover are called to do so.

        • Lisa Twaronite

          Yeah, but why would they WANT to?

    • Tracy

      Here’s where I disagree with you– I don’t assume four years without marriage means there’s something wrong. It all depends on context. It is my choice based on my values (getting my grad degree, remaining financially independent in my early twenties, getting to know my partner on my own terms). I also don’t think that decision is necessarily “selfish and immature.” It hasn’t affected anyone else, it hasn’t degraded my respect for the commitment of a marriage, and it has allowed me to focus on my education and career. I know it may seem strange to you, but in my experience, it is possible to have a committed, happy, and mutually fullfilling relationship that doesn’t require marriage on a set timeline.

      I’ll feel more strongly about the idea of marriage when I begin to consider starting a family, since that decision will impact people besides my partner and myself. But in the meantime, I don’t understand why the author and commenters here are so generally hostile and worked up about someone else’s personal lifestyle choices.

  • Katrina Fernandez

    Yes. When you date someone and have casual sex with them it prevents both men and women from recognizing relationship red flags.

  • Christine Hebert

    My 23 year old daughter just married the man she has been living with for several years. While I was not happy about the living arrangements, and she did know it, I remained supportive of her for the very reasons you mentioned in your “rant.” I disagree with co-habitation, but I wanted my daughter to know that she still had my love and support and a place to go if he turned out to be a toss away schmuck. I pray daily for their marriage and that they may beat the odds. Divorce sucks, and I would not wish it on my daughter or anyone else.

    • Katrina Fernandez

      At least you had the parental fortitude to express your concerns and did not willing enable the lifestyle by handing her the keys. All we can do as parents, when kids are grown, is to express our concern and be there to love them when they fail and need us again… we are not required to set them up for failure by helping them do something we don’t agree with.

      And yes… divorce sucks.

  • Bridget N

    The problem, I think, is that the co-signing parents of the cohabitating children did not make clear certain things to their kids while those kids were still living in their parents’ houses. My parents were very clear about what they expected and what we could expect from them based on our behavior and our choices as we grew older. We knew they would never condone shacking up. How did we know? They frickin told us! We knew they strongly recommended that we marry within our faith. How did we know? They told us! We knew they didn’t want us to expect them to keep our room ready and waiting for us upon college graduation. How did we know? They told us! Nevermind that I wouldn’t have lived with my boyfriend/fiance or ever asked my parents to cosign a lease, car loan, or anything else, but I knew to not even dare ask because my parents said they wouldn’t.

    And if the cosigning parents of the cohabitating parents don’t have any problem at all with it or are just incapable of saying “NO!” to their kiddos, then that’s crap parenting on their parts. My parents made sure we understood that, no matter how much we may not want to hear what they had to say, they still had to say it because they don’t ultimately answer to us. They answer to God. They have an obligation to God to be the best parents they can be until they die or we die. So morally questionable, sinful choices will be addressed (they don’t browbeat us by any means…just discuss if the need arises). Our immortal souls are too important to ignore or turn a blind eye to.

  • momofthree3

    Just nit-picky…feel free to disregard… “I do know that I like you well enough to have sex with and for you to”. I think you need a “you” after “with”.

    Great article.

  • Katrina Fernandez

    Good point? One I can’t answer except to note that you ask a good question.

    • Rosemary58

      When charity begins in the home, we are prepared to give others the respect that begins with our loved ones. How can it make a lover feel that he/she is being tested? Who can possibly measure up?
      That’s what marriage is for. it protects the dignity of the other within a “womb” of trust and the feeling of being protected. It keeps the other from being debased, from being treated like a product.

  • FrRamil E. Fajardo

    “Why on earth would you entertain the idea of marriage with someone you don’t fully trust? You don’t really trust them now do you; or why else would you make living together before marriage, just to see how things go, a prerequisite.”


    Why do people insist on using their lives – and not their minds, hearts and common sense *first* – in discerning whether that person is trustworthy to begin with??

    Heck, any man or woman can use their bodies in sexual ways. Not every man or woman can show respect, commitment and love with hearts, minds and souls.

    People date so that they can figure a potential spouse out, without using their bodies as part of the experiment.

  • Christine~Soccer Mom

    I could hug you for this!!

  • Barb S

    A lease–or mortgage agreement–is also “just a piece of paper.” So are a work contract, a college diploma and a car loan. I’d love to see people remind couples of that when they use the “marriage is just a piece of paper” line.

  • Linda

    It all comes down to the fact that fornication has become acceptable to even Christians! If we actually still believe it is a sin and teach our children the dangers of committing this sin then cohabiting would not be an issue at all. But as with most things of the world it has become a case of “everyone else is doing it” and your faith takes second place to what the world is doing

    • James H, London

      I’m already drumming it into my girls (aged 8 and 9) that sex outside of marriage is wrong – I just hope they remember it. The future is anyone’s guess.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I started at age 3 with my son. Because at age 3, we already had a girl in our daycare calling him her “boyfriend” (they ended up getting in a childish fight and the family pulled out of the daycare over safety issues, because he pulled her hair- sounded like a domestic violence complaint when the two year old came in and said “boyfriend pulled my hair”).

  • BrandonUB

    I see these parents come in with their children and their children’s
    lovers and act like them living together is the most natural thing in
    the world.

    This might be because it’s literally a natural thing for pair-bonded humans to live together. If you want to argue that natural things are sometimes bad, that’s fair enough, but pretending that people living together is unnatural is downright silly.

    Moving in your boyfriend is not the “next level”. It does not guarantee an engagement ring in the near future.

    You’re inserting your goal where it’s not automatically the case for others. People cohabitate for a variety of reasons, and seeking a magic ticket to engagement is not a top priority for all of them.

    If a man asks you to move in with him the proper response is to be horrified and insulted.

    What a downright odd response. Do you often feel horrified and insulted by well meaning people?

  • Jennifer Ayars Bush

    The real question is: What is the purpose of marriage? If more people had a correct answer to that question, I don’t think cohabitation would be an issue. The purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. Yes, there are other benefits to marriage but that is why marriage exists.

    • AllieB

      If you believe that the purpose of marriage is to have children, then older adults and those who are infertile should not get married? Yes, I believe people should wait until marriage to live together, but there is a fundamental flaw in your logic.

      • James H, London

        “that older adults and those who are infertile should not get married”

        Apples, meet oranges.

        • Fiddlesticks

          If one spouse is infertile they’re still fulfilling the marriage vows by only having sex with each other. They promised only to have children with each other – the other spouse can’t go off and have a child with another person. So the family unit doesn’t grow beyond 2 unless the couple adopt. It’s still a family unit. It’s still a marriage.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I am beginning to answer that question with yes, I believe infertile people shouldn’t get married and should go for Holy Orders instead.

        • Nan

          Notwithstanding age limits for many religious organizations.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            There are religious orders that don’t have the age limits. Most of the ones with age limits, have them because they fail to attract younger participants to take care of the older ones.

      • Nan

        Note that older adults and those who are infertile can nurture children by volunteering, adopting and acting as foster parents or foster grandparents. The point is that they have the complementarity in bodies and are open to life whether it’s literally creating a life or by helping others, such as by helping a young woman who is pregnant.

        • AllieB

          My point was that people should be marrying because they love each other, not for the sole intention of raising children. Having children inside a loving, nurturing home is a benefit, not the purpose.

          • simone

            It gods purpose that marriage is also for procreation and the other is to fulfill sexual pleasure and sharing outside of that it’s taking from the other not giving not sharing.

  • Deanna Bartalini

    It is very difficult when a parent sees their child behaving in ways that are contrary to how we raised them. My son lives with his girlfriend. The only people who have a problem with it are me,his father and his sister. When they visit us, they sleep separately; when we visit them, they sleep separately; not so with her parents. My son struggled but eventually decided that living together was the best option . Her parents think it’s great and love my son dearly. I want to love this young woman, but it is difficult because she lives with my son. That may sound awful, and maybe I should hold my son to a higher standard, but I’ve told him how I feel and why I think it’s wrong and on some level he understands and may even agree but hey, it’s just one voice while the rest of the world thinks I am the strange one. If I were the girl’s mom I would have told her not to do it, because in the end I think the chances of her getting hurt, especially career wise, are far greater than for him. But I’m not her mother.

    • James H, London

      I really, really hate this phrase, but your son needs to [cringe] Man Up. He should be making the Big Decisions, and if the girlfriend doesn’t like it, she should be disposed of. End of story. A woman who likes to live without commitment is lousy wife material.

      • Lisa Twaronite

        In this case, she should indeed be “disposed of,” and seek out a like-minded partner with a similar view of commitment/cohabitation who won’t “dispose of” her like a piece of garbage, but who, whether they stay together or go their separate ways, will treat her with respect — on the couple’s own terms, not necessarily on their parents’ terms.

  • Annie Jeffries

    I learned 40 years ago that if a man could dump his wife (and in a Catholic union, no less) and not look back then there was no way I would ever live with a man before marriage. I learned the hard way, at 23, that marriage affords a woman little or no protection. How much less are young women expecting for themselves now when they aren’t even contemplating marriage in a serious and rational way. Do yourselves a favor, young sisters. Expect more. If he isn’t willing to offer more without a lot of strings attached then move on. You will feel a lot better about yourself.

  • ariofrio

    We do a lot of social justice, Serena. But everyone agrees on that, which is why you don’t hear much about the Church’s efforts in this camp.

    I agree that the author probably should have made her article gender-neutral, since it is indeed possible that the one being used in the way described by her is the man, not the woman.

    But I’m curious. Why do you and/or your parents think that is ridiculous to go into a marriage with no sexual experience?

  • disqus_KnwKfkeyX2

    “Your parents’ Catholicism” is not Catholicism, and neither is yours. There is only ONE “Catholicism” and it’s teachings are enumerated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Those teachings include helping the poor and weak, but ALSO (and simultaneously) that persons should acquire VIRTUES–including chastity–and that SACRAMENTS–including Matrimony–are real, God-created institutions. So go ahead and believe whatever you want, but do not call a thing what it is not. Catholicism is crystal clear in its teaching. Some teachings are HARD teachings, but they are Catholic teachings nonetheless. You don’t get to pick and choose teachings because they are more attractive or convenient for you and call them “Catholic.” Sorry, Charlie.

  • Coco

    I’ve been in this position (cohabitation), and I did it because it made sense. Right or wrong, we were sleeping in the same house night after night after night. We were both professional adults (that could afford our own place) with intentions to marry each other when the time was right. Well the time was never right, and work forced us apart geographically.

    Welcome to the real world people, as a parent, I have one rule: You can live with me for free, but I will NOT put up any money or credit for you to live with someone else (man or woman). This situation is not limited to a boyfriend or a girlfriend! This stuff happens all the time with friends as well. I think this is something you’re all overlooking.

    Also, if you’re going to rant off ‘facts’ about marriage statistics, at least provide a source. I’ve seen successful and failed marriages that had a start in just about every way you can think of.

  • The Veil of Chastity

    Yes, yes, yes. Why can’t they see it? The pill perhaps?? Blinding.

    • Nan

      Yes because it separates sex from procreation, giving the illusion that humans can choose when and whether to have children.

      • James H, London

        Well, it’s not an illusion, but a below-replacement birthrate is the reason why Christianity is dying out in the first world. Death begets death.

        • Nan

          Yes because people want to play God.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    With consideration and respect.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    I agree it’s much easier to walk out when you’re just living together — which is why I think it’s a great idea.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      That seems to be the reverse of what you said earlier Lisa. Which is it? Is commitment important, or is being able to walk out easily important?

      • Lisa Twaronite

        Being able to walk out easily was most important to me, before I knew for certain that I was ready to make the commitment of marriage. I believe that’s what I said in my first comment.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Ah, see, when I finally got serious enough to even come close, I had made the commitment to the Church’s marriage laws *first*- then met somebody who wanted to live up to those laws- then was engaged for 18 months without living together as she went through RCIA and marriage prep.

          Seems like a better order, except for the delay in having children seems to have caused a problem with mild infertility (in 15 years of charting, we’ve still yet to figure out her cycle accurately enough, and NFP in reverse has yielded only a single child in that time).

          • Lisa Twaronite

            Congratulations on your child. And it sounds as if you certainly did what was right for you and your family.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            He’s 10 next week. Going on 6. We are indeed the mild special needs family- and we volunteer with the Archdiocese Office for People with Disabilities to remind us how lucky we are.

  • genevieve bergez

    You’re right about both men and women being responsible parties. That said you and your parent’s philosophy about experimenting with other people is “using” them as “objects” as you were also used as an object for pleasure by them.That’s an intimate act and memories probably still have repercussions in your family and the lives of people you knew. Philosophies have consequences that we didn’t intend.

  • Virginia Munoz

    AWESOME. A boyfriend asked me after a few months if we’d ever live together. I said, “Like, when we’re married?” I really didn’t get what he was saying… Um, that sure scared the crap out of him and he dumped me right away. Yay, me!!
    The man I married would NEVER have asked me to move in with him before asking me to marry him (or before we actually got married). He knew it was an insult and rude. We’ve been married 15 years now.

  • Virginia Munoz

    Weird. I’ve been a Catholic for 35 years, lived in four countries and 7 states. I’ve never met a Catholic like that. Sounds made up.

    • James H, London

      Nah. Big cities are full of ‘em.

      • Lizzie Rose

        I believe that big cities are full of people who believe those things, however people who do not accept all of the teachings can not call themselves a practicing Catholic. Therefore, big cities are not full of Catholics like that.

        • Lisa Twaronite

          Lizzie Rose, isn’t anyone baptized a Catholic a Catholic? You can call people dissenting Catholics (or, as I prefer myself, “secular Catholics”), and you can certainly call them out when their opinions don’t align with the Church’s and say they don’t hold Catholic beliefs. But I don’t think you can insist that certain Catholics aren’t Catholic — unless you don’t believe in the sacrament of baptism.

          • simone

            Lisa you either truly follow Christ word or you don’t. You cannot love the world and god at same time. Just because you are baptize doors not mean your a true follower of Jesus. Jesus said in Matthew many will say in my name haven’t I prophesy in your name and haven’t I cast out demons Jesus will say depart from me I never knew you. Many people claim to be of the lord but think that sexual immortality is okay. Bible says you cannot serve god and devil at the sometime the same people that thinks that god is tolerant of sin are the same people that Jesus will say to I never knew you depart fro me. God has rules and laws because he loves you and wants to protect you. Just because a cohabition compile looks or seems happy doesn’t mean that what they are doing is not god g to catch up and bite them one day.

          • simone

            Just because a cohabition couple seems to be happy doesn’t mean that what they are doing is not going to catch up to them in bite them. Fornication means any physical or sexual relations between two unmarried persons. The world thinks that sin is just another way of life but not in the eyes of god.

  • Fiddlesticks

    I always thought like this. I was utterly insulted at the idea of a guy asking me to live with him. Then my boyfriend said ‘I know that I want to marry you, but if it’s too soon for you to make up your mind, you can come and live with me for a couple of years without any commitment – no pressure.’ This kind of stumped me. I was all ready to get indignant, but somehow, when someone puts it that way round … Some people thought I was mad for getting married without living together first, but, really, what girl plays with a man’s heart (not to mention bank balance) rather than giving him a straight answer? (I was also in love with him, of course!)

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Was there an economic component in this case?

      That’s the hard one to me. My wife and I “wasted” over $3000 on her lease before marriage after I bought the house. I don’t regret that, but I could easily see how somebody in a lower economic level, facing RCIA and six month’s marriage prep, would have made a significantly different decision.

      • Fiddlesticks

        I don’t entirely follow. I did joke about needing to get married because my lease was about to run out, but really, it didn’t play any part in the decision!

        I suppose the year we were engaged I ‘wasted’ money on rent, but I don’t understand people who become financially entangled before they’ve tied the knot. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Either you’re your own person and you’re responsible for yourself, or you’re a unit and you’re responsible for one another. If you need someone to go half on rent with you, that’s what friends are for. If you’re completely broke, that’s what your parents’ couch is for. You might have a bust up over the electricity bill, but a friend isn’t going to get your pregnant or give you an STD and then clear off leaving you with the mess.

        I know people co-habit for many different reasons – it’s best not to make hasty judgments about a person’s character. But, personally, I like to keep things simple, and keep things clear.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Well, from that standpoint, we’re still pretty financially separate, due to certain inheritances from her side and the two home based businesses. We have four checking accounts, three savings accounts, and numerous investment accounts that neither of us are allowed to spend, along with three revolving loans. I have them all tied together in such a way that with discussion, we can use one or both cell phones to move money in between as needed.

          I guess instead of having divorce as a possibility, we use insurance and separate bank accounts……she’s got her money and I’m glad she has it in case something ever happens to me.

      • Nan

        I know a woman who lived with her boyfriend in the house they had bought together, but then she wanted to be joined fully to the Church. The boyfriend was fine with that until they met with the priest who was scandalized that they were living together. By the time I met her, 5 months later, she was in the middle of RCIA and the boyfriend was a story from the past. A year after her first meeting with the priest, she fell in love with a nice Catholic guy and was married in the Church the next spring.

  • James H, London

    “You do realize that marriage was traditionally a financial transaction,
    where a woman went from being her father’s property to belonging to her
    husband, don’t you?”

    References, or you’re lying. She went from being her father’s *responsibility* to her husband’s. Big difference.

    • Nan

      Marriage used to mean that the two became one, which was the husband. Any property the woman inherited, her husband controlled. If she left her husband, she left without anything but the clothes on her back because her husband owned everything. No spousal maintenance, no child support because the children, unless under 7, stayed with the father. Assuming the mother’s family would take them in, the mother could raise the children until 7, at which time they returned to their father. Until women were granted property rights and the vote, which was not until 1920, this was true.

      They say it’s love that ruined marriage as marriage was a way to secure property rights and to ensure stability; if you look at Queen Victoria marrying off her children to alliances with other countries to create alliances, this was true of people who were less prominent as well.

  • Fiddlesticks

    ‘My parents’ Catholicism is about helping the poor, the weak, and the sick, not about some sexist idea of sexual purity.’

    I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings bout chastity. For me chastity is about two simple things: privacy and taking care of my body. I hate all those sexual double standards where men who’ve slept with lots of women are ‘studs’ and women who’ve slept with lots of men are ‘sluts’. (Helping the poor, weak and sick is good – good on your parents. But it’s worth remembering that one of the biggest causes of poverty, weakness and sickness in this world is sexual immorality.)

    ‘My parents encouraged me to explore myself sexually, explaining that its ridiculous to go into a marriage with no sexual experience, and without a repertoire of past partners who have taught me what I like and what other people like.’

    When you’re married you have decades ahead of you to practice. Why practice on other people?

  • TheodoreSeeber

    “My parents’ Catholicism is about helping the poor, the weak, and the sick, not about some sexist idea of sexual purity.”

    Funny, I thought those were one and the same. The best anti-poverty and anti-STD program ever invented was heterosexual monogamous sacramental marriage.

  • Lydia

    I’ve been reading the comments here, and I notice that some people who defend cohabiting say that it doesn’t affect anyone else but will affect others when or if they want to have children. I notice the _absolute_ separation between sex and children. I mean, is this a “contraceptive mindset” on stilts, or what? This isn’t even merely a Catholic-Protestant disagreement about whether contraception is always wrong. It’s an extreme attitude that sex has _nothing_ to do with babies. Sex is, in other words, “just about us.” Babies? No, no babies. Where do babies come from, again? Can’t seem to remember.

    If the entire relationship is literally _predicated_ on wanting sex without all of the commitment of marriage and on its being “just us two,” what happens if a baby comes along? Contraception does fail from time to time, y’know. Whether you murder (that is, abort) the child, reluctantly keep the child and get married, keep the child and don’t get married, keep the child and break up, or put the child up for adoption, that will be by definition a crisis pregnancy and a child whose very existence is being treated as a major problem and a major inconvenience rather than the natural fruit of the union.

    I’ve got news for you, cohabiters: If you’re having sex, you could be having babies, and there is a very real sense in which your actions _already_ have an impact on people other than just the two of you. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    • Lisa Twaronite

      Lydia, why would this be “news” to anyone? And why would marriage change ANY of that? Even after my partner and I married, my first pregnancy was unwanted and therefore according to you, “by definition a crisis pregnancy.” Secular marriage is not sacramental marriage — a legal commitment to a partner does not automatically mean every pregnancy is welcomed as “the natural fruit of the union.”

    • Lisa Twaronite

      Lydia, why would this be “news” to anyone? And why would marriage change ANY of that? Even after my partner and I married, my first pregnancy was unwanted and therefore according to you, “by definition a crisis pregnancy.” Secular marriage is not sacramental marriage — a legal commitment to a partner does not automatically mean every pregnancy is welcomed as “the natural fruit of the union.”

      • Nan

        That’s the problem with the secular world; the natural fruit of the union is treated as something inconvenient and expendable rather than a joy. You still treated sex as a recreational activity even after you were married and the child as an inconvenience. Did you kill your inconvenient baby?

        • Lisa Twaronite

          Nan, my unwanted baby wasn’t born, but fortunately, I didn’t have to kill it. Thanks for asking.

      • Lydia

        Well, maybe you shd. talk to all the secular people (including one commentator I noticed right here) who _do_ plan to get married on purpose only when they “want to start a family.” Whether you do or not, even they (and even if secular) seem to think there’s some notion that you make the relationship permanent before having a baby. The trouble is that they _could_ have a baby by having sex now, while cohabiting, _before_ making the relationship more permanent. Yet they are blithely assuming that they won’t, that they will be able to control the whole thing and get married only when they are “ready” to have children. That is somewhat unrealistic, and hence unfair to the children they may conceive in the meanwhile. That it makes abortion more likely than abortion would be if they thought of things differently should pretty much go without saying; it’s just a psychological fact. It’s rather akin to people who get married while promising each other never to have children. You can say that people “know” that this isn’t all within their control, but that isn’t how they talk.

        • Lisa Twaronite

          Let us assume, though, that the people who are cohabitating are already engaged in premarital sex — really, why would they wait until they were living together, just to begin having it? So what you’re arguing against here is not really refraining from cohabitation, but refraining from sex before they’re ready to have children.

          • Lydia

            I would agree that I’m arguing against that, but I would also argue that the language of the grey area that is cohabiting emphasizes the oddness of the whole perspective. “Yeah, we’re really so close that we want to take our relationship to a new level and live together, but this has _nothing_ to do with babies. If we wanted babies we’d get married.” It’s extremely deliberate, extremely overt. These are people who are not only _having_ premarital sex but who intend and are in a sense committing themselves to go _on_ having premarital sex with that particular person for quite some time, maybe even years, but who are expressly stating that this has _nothing_ to do with babies. Even from a biological perspective, that’s unrealistic. Contraception is not fool-proof and of course there is some sense in which even contracepted heterosexual intercourse has _something_ to do with babies. A casual relationship or even a non-cohabiting relationship is, I gather, treated as less serious and easier to break off than a cohabiting relationship. So in a sense they are committing to having sex by living together. They are cementing that aspect of their relationship. But they are still insisting or talking as if they have perfect control (which really isn’t true) over whether any babies result or over any connection of sex with babies.

          • Lisa Twaronite

            Plenty of married people don’t want babies, either. It’s true that contraception isn’t 100% effective, but depending on the types used, it can render the risk of conception quite negligible. Anyone who doesn’t want a baby but still wants to have an active sex life owes it to herself to protect herself as best she can. Cohabitation isn’t about just sex, though — in my own case, it was about saving rent money. It was a very economical decision (and preventing pregnancy was, too).

      • Fiddlesticks

        I’m about to be horribly judgemental, so brace yourself. Let’s get this straight, you were getting married and you didn’t ask yourself ‘hmm, am I ready to have children?’ and you then aborted your first child because it came along before you were prepared? And this is the fault of ‘secular marriage not being a sacramental marriage’ and not your fault for not planning your life better and waiting to get married until a time you were better set up to have children? I’m assuming you were a grown-up when you made these really bad decisions? I guess we all do stupid things – especially when in love. I’ve done a lot of stupid things in my lifetime and made a lot of really bad decisions that seemed sensible at the time. But the fact that you can’t see that what you did was wrong. That’s what I find just really troubling.

        • LisaTwaronite

          Oh wow, was I ever surprised when a notification popped up for this ancient blog comment thread!
          Yep, it was a bad decision to have unprotected sex when I didn’t want a baby, but I didn’t realize how fertile I was — I’ve taken precautions ever since.
          I didn’t have an abortion. Fortunately, my prayers were answered and it died, a little over 6 weeks along. My point above was, marriage doesn’t matter at all, not a bit, when a baby conceived inside one isn’t wanted — or when a baby conceived outside of marriage is.

          • Fiddlesticks

            Yip, I guess I have far too much time on my hands to read very old blog posts!

            OK. I understand your point a whole lot better now. And I sympathise. I thought you’d done something really daft like get married on no money and then say ‘oh no, we don’t have any money – better abort’. I’ve heard of people doing that before. But the ‘let’s wing it without the contraception for one night it’s the wrong time of month anyway’ spare-of-the-moment bad decision making thing – it’s easily done!

            Being pregnant is difficult even when it’s planned. There’s something quite odd about another life growing inside you, and you don’t always feel that bonded. Prenatal depression etc. is, I think, something we’re not honest enough about. When it’s a complete shock and knocks all your plans you can just feel plain trapped and desperate and sometimes terribly guilty (because you’re a mother and mothers are supposed to feel attached to their babies and grateful to God for the little blessing – right?).

            Having said that, I’m still going to insist that that’s one of the things that you have to think about when you get married. What about when that unplanned kid comes along? It’s actually very common, either because of contraceptive failure or because people think like you did ‘oh, once without the contraception won’t hurt …’ But that’s the price of marriage. Marriage isn’t a walk in the park and it’s going to require sacrifices. Planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, children are the fruits of marriage, whether it’s civil, religious or an arrangement between two people that they haven’t had legally recognised.

            BTW This is the pot calling the kettle black. As you can tell from the ridiculous time I spend on other people’s blogs pontificating on other people’s lives when I ought to be getting on with stuff, I’m one of the laziest, most self-indulgent people I know. As my husband keeps telling me (though luckily he loves me anyway). Still, what I say is true – marriage and family requires sacrifice. Even if that’s a whole lot easier said than done.

          • LisaTwaronite

            The original comment above to which I was responding was about cohabitation vs marriage, and I made the point that when it comes down to whether any resulting kids are wanted or not, the cohabitation vs marriage distinction makes NO difference. Children are not the fruits of marriage – -they’re the fruits of SEX, and whether that sex is outside or inside marriage doesn’t matter.

            I didn’t think, “Oh, once without the contraception won’t hurt …” — my husband wanted to try for a baby, and I stupidly agreed, knowing full well that I didn’t want one. As it happened, years later, we had three (and I always say, I didn’t fully realize how much I dislike babies until I actually had to take care of one. Does this make me the stereotypical baby-hating feminist?). Fortunately, the baby years don’t last forever.

            I’m still going to maintain that marriage doesn’t matter, one way or another. One of the things that you have to think about when you start having sex is, what you would do if an unplanned pregnancy comes along? It’s an important question — and one in which marriage doesn’t necessarily figure.

          • Fiddlesticks

            I don’t think we entirely disagree – there’s an old Lollard (proto-Protestant saying) ‘You don’t need a priest to marry you, a union of hearts is enough’. It’s kind of an optimistic view of human nature though. I think Kat is right. All too often when someone says ‘let’s move in together’ what they mean is ‘I want to be with you at the moment, but I don’t really want to think about the long term, so I’m going to kind of make a commitment, but have one foot out the door’. Women do this as well as men. I think that’s what the original post was getting at – that too many people think that living together isn’t such a big commitment as marriage, and don’t expect it to involve anything long term like children, but actually sex is the commitment – not the marriage ceremony – because sex leads to children.

            Sorry to be cynical. There are, of course, a lot of relationships where the people are really committed, but just haven’t got around to the ceremony bit yet.

            P.S. If only we all had that baby-loving gene then wouldn’t we be back in Eden! Still, you obviously got something out of it in the long run as you were prepared to go through it 3 times.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Yes, I went through with it — willingly — three times. I always say, I never wanted kids, and I never regretted changing my mind. In fact, maybe if there is a God, He put me on earth to help convince my fellow baby-haters to procreate? Maybe I’m part of some mysterious plan…

          • simone

            Lisa first of all I am sorry for your baby and I will be praying for you. Marriage is a god ordain covenant marriage is one of the most important decision a person can make. I was born out of wedlock which cause me to have a life without a father. I get so mad when people think there is nothing wrong with having a baby outside of marriage. Children are the most safest in marriage union. You are being deceive. There is nothing that justifies these bad choices very often when people justify their bad choices their trying to get away with what they are doing.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    Sorry, God doesn’t figure into my relationship at all — my partner is not a believer, and we live in a non-Christian culture outside of America. We made no promises before God to honor each other. Some people do not see any problem with this.
    Cohabitating surely can be selfish sometimes, but it’s not inherently so. In fact, it can be inherently UNselfish, as two people struggle to compromise to figure out how to live a constructive life together, day in and day out, meeting each other’s needs.

  • Nan

    Catholicism teaches that those who are not married remain in a chaste state. Note that it goes equally for gay and straight. Gays getting the legal right from the secular government to call their union marriage in no way binds the Church to blessing such false unions.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    Ha ha ha, breaking up is the “responsible and loving decision?” Sorry, I had to laugh at that. It is true I don’t accept the traditional notion of marriage, but the legal commitment has served me and my partner well for more than two decades, so I’m glad we didn’t listen to your “responsible and loving” advice back in the days when we were shacking up.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    Sure — that’s why we’re still together.

  • Lisa Twaronite

    But you can’t mandate a belief in God, and therefore can’t claim that “natural law” limits sexuality to sacramental marriage. God’s laws don’t apply to secular people, although you can fervently pray that they might choose to follow them.

    • Matt Roth

      They do apply, but people just choose to ignore them.

      • Lisa Twaronite

        Actually, no, they most certainly don’t. One has to acknowledge that something exists before one can ignore it, whereas if one is a nonbeliever, it simply isn’t there at all, to be ignored.

        • Fiddlesticks

          Natural law is the bit that God has written into nature. Like, sleeping and eating is good for your health. It’s about using our bodies in the way that they were designed. I think that’s what Matt means when he says that the rules always apply. You can ignore them, stay up all night for days on ends eating only dorritos, but the law or nature says you’ll feel pretty ill. Does that make more sense?

          • Lisa Twaronite

            Yes, but conhabitation isn’t covered under your definition of natural law, the way sleeping/eating would be. A couple, like my partner and I can, can choose to live together or not (and can choose to have children or not) without feeling “pretty ill” about any of our decisions, either way.

        • simone

          Lisa I disagree with you. But I love you with love of Christ. God bless you and I will pray you and for whatever you need please don’t hesitate to tell what I can pray about for you. Christ died for you Jesus loves you Lisa.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Thanks, but actually, I’m doing just fine — my life is good, and my problems are all bearable. So if you really want to pray, please do so for a friend of mine who just got a very bad medical diagnosis, and another friend who suddenly lost a loved one. Thanks, and Merry Christmas.

    • simone

      The bible does limit sex to marriage. If people would read and study the bible they would realize that god ordain sex for marriage. I have seen and heard so many people say regret cohabition and havingsex outside of marriage. ur culture may accept these choices but men’s ways are not god ways. Just because our world accepts something doesn’t mean it’s right.

  • Fiddlesticks

    Child prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, abandoned infants, abandoned mothers, divorce and remarriage, health complications arising from abortion.

    These account for quite a lot of suffering in the world.

  • Fiddlesticks

    Good point. If men had their way, they would have the sex without having to change the wallpaper or have the bathroom cluttered up with cosmetics and the fridge filled with organic vegetables.

  • trentfinley23

    I would have to beg to differ with cohabitation being a smack in the
    face especially when including factors such as honesty, compatibility,
    stability, priorities, and love.
    The dating game seems to consist
    of actors and actresses playing their roles’. In other words I think
    that it would be great idea to take into consideration that some people
    may feel that they have to lie to their partner for various reasons. For
    instance, if a guy perceives a woman as superficial and he really wants
    her, then he may go to the extreme of buying his partner anything that
    suits her interest in the line of fashion, materials, etc. Another
    example that I commonly witness is that when a guy secretly scopes to
    find out what a girl likes and tries his best to portray those qualities
    that she admire. Many people have problems being honest with themselves
    as well as being honest with others. A person can only pretend so long
    before their true character reveals itself. If someone isn’t honest with
    their partner, then how will the male and female accurately evaluate
    their relationship in regards to compatibility.
    Key factors that
    determine compatibility includes personality and lifestyle. Does the
    personalities collide? If so, then that would automatically being an
    ingredient for an unhealthy relationship brewing. How does the man or
    woman react under stressful conditions? For instance, if a guy and his
    girlfriend have different opinions a topic, then can they agree to
    disagree? Can they compromise? An example this can be with a guy
    disagreeing with feminism. If the girl is ready to chew his head off
    based on the idea that there is a little discrepancy, then that’s a
    tell-tale sign that there may be emotional control issues that could
    ruin the relationship between the two. Lifestyle is also important when
    two people are involved to possibly marry. Is it okay for your guy or
    girl to go out to the club or bar every night? Make sure that every
    double standard is met so that neither the man or woman is left feeling
    empty. If you want to do something that you don’t want your partner
    doing, then it may not be a good idea to act on it. Is he or she needy
    or clingy? This can annoy the crap out of some people. Make sure that
    these types of things are known before marrying someone. Honest open
    discussions about priorities should be a priority itself.
    What values
    do each of you share? Which are the most important values that you
    require? How about your partner? Lets say that a guy has a master’s
    degree and he works part-time at an abortion clinic, but his girl is a
    social worker who firmly disagrees with abortion. If his girl is unaware
    of the fact that he works at an abortion clinic, then that can cause a
    huge uproar due to the fact that his girl’s view strongly opposes
    abortion. Once the couple establishes each others’ honesty,
    compatibility, and priorities, the question is do they love each other
    for who they are and what their qualities consist of.
    Stability and
    love goes hand in hand. Love cannot pay the bills and money cannot buy
    love. However, money is the means that can be used to show love to an
    extent. The bills need to be paid and there has to be food on the table.
    Gucci, Prada, and Louie isn’t needed.
    Conclusively, this is just a
    summary of the subjects of compatibility, love, stability, honesty, and
    priorities, which should all be discussed thoroughly before marriage is
    considered. After all, the worst mistake that can be made is rushing to
    marry someone without becoming familiar with the characteristics of that
    individual. It’s a great idea to know whether you can tolerate the
    contents that your boyfriend or girlfriend consist of. In conclusion, I
    think that cohabitation can be great depending on what the two
    individuals make it.

  • ATTH

    I’ve lived with two men in my lifetime, and I’m glad I did. I learned alot about myself. I learned that I don’t enjoy constantly tending to someone else’s needs and preferences. The constant compromise and concession becomes irritating. I don’t enjoy cleaning up after anyone else. I enjoy the freedom of doing what I want, when I want, without consulting or coordinating with someone. I enjoy being totally responsible for my own home and finances, and to handle them the way I see fit with no compromise. I like being free to enjoy more friendships than I can while anchored to a man. I enjoy being free to focus on my career and to move when I need to. I enjoy being in control of my own business and managing it without unsolicited input from the peanut gallery.

    Mostly I learned that marriage is an institution/legal arrangement that I have no interest in. I do not want children. Plus I just like living alone.

    If I had gotten married, I would have been miserable, and it would have ended in divorce.

    I am called selfish all the time, mostly from people in miserable marriages and/or with problematic children. :)

    • Little Boy Blue

      I agree that the government only sees marriage as such; a legal agreement. Someone speaking from faith though, I do see it for the sacrament that it is, which is why I would like to get married someday. Not judgin’, just sayin’. :)

    • Fiddlesticks

      I suppose it worked out well for you in the end. Sounds like marriage really isn’t for you – your ‘vocation’, to put it in religious terms. I don’t think you’re selfish at all. I know plenty of unselfish unmarried people. You took a heck of a risk, though. If you’d got pregnant it would have been a bit late to say ‘hmmm, this really isn’t for me’.

    • simone

      Your not a bad person for not wanting to get married. But be sure to keep. Yourself sexually pure just encased you change your mind. Because you deserve soo much better.

  • Nightsong

    Oh yeah. All girls are naive victims looking for marriage, and all guys are sex-crazed jerks who want someone who can wash their dirty underwear after sex. It’s never the other way around. Nope. You never date a seemingly well put-together girl only to find out nudes of her exist on the Internet from her ill-advised college wet t-shirt contest tour, or the sexts she sent to an ex-boyfriend who dressed like Fred Durst and sent her photos to a revenge porn site.

    This isn’t 1985. The women are worst than the men in many respects. In a Catholic bubble you may not encounter a group of girls gossiping about the penis size of a guy one of them had a one night stand with, or talking about their “vagina sweat” on a hot day, but that doesn’t mean those conversations aren’t happening everywhere.

    And let’s stop worrying about what other people are doing in their bedrooms, okay? The problem with the Catholic mindset of bedroom policing is that the police are the biggest perverts — while you’re feeling horrible about premarital sex, some priests in Rome are living it up in a $2 million apartment that sees more gay sex than a San Francisco bathhouse. And don’t even get me started on those Catholic dating sites that want you to fill out questionnaires detailing every time you’ve seen a breast. The people who run those things probably have browser caches bursting at the seams with the most base porn the Internet has to offer.


  • simone

    Matt I agree cohabition is very selfish. In fact cohabition is a performance based relationship. Why do people live together in the first place because there are doubts. What you do before you get married make a huge difference how the outcome of that marriage will be. People confuse infatuation with love. Love is not a feeling because feelings don’t stay the same. Love us an action.

  • Augustine

    Hear, hear!

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    The CCC disagrees.

    Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. (CCC 1749)

    To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.” (CCC 2477-2478)

  • Matthew Roth

    1) this post is a year old.
    2) Thank you. I take that under consideration even as I note that people are like, “Whelp, I’m not Christian/religious/believer, so it doesn’t apply” when in fact there is a God who laid out everything according to His Providence. But it’s a bit useless explaining Christian metaphysics and ethics when it’s on a different plane of understanding from today’s standards.