Debate I need answered - sleeping over at a friend house.

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by anp1215

Seriously? If a poor, destitute woman showed up at Jesus' door in the middle of the night with no money, no food, and no friends or family, I have a hard time believing his response would be "Well see, I'm a man, and you're a woman, and you know, if I let you sleep in that spare room I have, Bob and Sue over there, well you see, they're my neighbors and you know what they would think about that. Anyway, there's probably some women or something around here that you can stay with. If you can't find any, guess you're outta luck." *door slam*

That's my Jesus! He would never put himself into an occasion of sin, even if it placed someone in danger. He was very legalistic, you know.

[anp1215]

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

That's my Jesus! He would never put himself into an occasion of sin, even if it placed someone in danger. He was very legalistic, you know.

Yes indeed!

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by anp1215

Yes indeed!

Yeah, it's funny cause you know, just being around prostitutes places you in an occasion of sin. But Jesus didn't view the world through sin-colored glasses, he saw the opportunity to minister.

[Dan Daly]

While we are called to follow Christ, we must also keep in mind as the old movie line goes..

A man has to know his limitations.

Jesus did minister to prostitutes. That does not necessarily mean going out to hang out with prostitutes is the best thing for any man or woman to do.

Pax Christi

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

That's my Jesus! He would never put himself into an occasion of sin, even if it placed someone in danger. He was very legalistic, you know.

All this WWJD stuff gets old. Why on earth would you think the only two options God had was turn away a female or let her sleep in His house?...... I think Mary would have been more than happy to help her son help a stranger....
The "Jesus hung out with sinners so therefore we should do the same" shtick is just code for not being strong enough to help call others to be Holy.

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato

All this WWJD stuff gets old.

Yeah, to heck with the teachings of Jesus, let's rely on traditionalist puritanical interpretations of the catechism. It's not like Jesus is the center of our faith or anything... and obviously, we are not called to imitate our savior.

Why on earth would you think the only two options God had was turn away a female or let her sleep in His house?......

What other options do you think he had?

I think Mary would have been more than happy to help her son help a stranger....

Jesus did not always lean on his mother when strangers needed help. In fact, I'm not sure he did that even once.

The "Jesus hung out with sinners so therefore we should do the same" shtick is just code for not being strong enough to help call others to be Holy.

So Jesus did the wrong thing by ministering to those in need? Look, not trying to give you a hard time, just not sure how your statement can be read in another way. Care to clarify?

[anp1215]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato

All this WWJD stuff gets old. Why on earth would you think the only two options God had was turn away a female or let her sleep in His house?...... I think Mary would have been more than happy to help her son help a stranger....
The "Jesus hung out with sinners so therefore we should do the same" shtick is just code for not being strong enough to help call others to be Holy.

Yeah, forget about what Jesus would do. I guess we should really be asking ourselves, "What would Catholic Potato do?"

[Catholicpotato]

Man, you guys love to jump to wrong conclusions singing the same old mantras.
I must have not been clear. One reason the WWJD thing was such a fad is because it was illogical. WWJD? Walk on water, heal the blind, DIE FOR YOUR SINS!!!! It never is WWJD it is What would Jesus TELL you to do. But I guess that doesnt look as good on a braclet. Jesus was God, he had knowlege and teaching authority. He admonished sinners and showed that it was better to take the high hard road than the morally easy one. Like in this situation..... Jesus was a MAN, and a MAN would have protected the honor of a Woman but getting her home safely or getting her a place to stay that would not cause scandal. PERIOD.
Most people that follow the WWJD or the "Jesus ate and drank with sinners" ideas seem to be the same people that have a hard time helping others to be Holy but sure like to fit in. Not saying that everyone is like that but in my experience if someone comes at me with "Jesus ate with sinners so I go to the bars with my friends are rarely living and speaking the Gospel.

[Castello]

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

Yeah, to heck with the teachings of Jesus, let's rely on traditionalist puritanical interpretations of the catechism. It's not like Jesus is the center of our faith or anything... and obviously, we are not called to imitate our savior.


What other options do you think he had?


Jesus did not always lean on his mother when strangers needed help. In fact, I'm not sure he did that even once.


So Jesus did the wrong thing by ministering to those in need? Look, not trying to give you a hard time, just not sure how your statement can be read in another way. Care to clarify?

This post comes close to blasphemy.

Jesus Christ when He walked the earth would not have committed any sin. To say he would have shared a house with a single woman is so scandalous.

Yes, Jesus ate and drank with sinners. He did not sin and he did not confirm anyone in their sin.

You do understand that for an unmarried man and woman to sleep in the same house when Jesus was on the earth would have meant stoning death for the woman?

[Mary Gail 36]

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87

I think there is a misunderstanding of the word scandal.

It would be a scandal if the two in the OP actually were flaunting being intimate and caused another person to actually commit the same sin, or be tempted to commit the same sin.

An example of scandal would be if a Catholic said to a young person, "Premarital sex is not a sin"

The OP did not do this. If people talk about her and what supposedly went on, even though she denied it, they are committing slander and calumny.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 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.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

.

The OP is not condoning pre-marital sex. So she did not commit scandal.

[lifeisbeautiful]

There are various uses for the word scandal.
This document on the Vatican's website touches on the subject.

Here is an excerpt:

So scandal runs through a vast field of different and contrasting situations. The highest testimony, that of martyrdom, is perfect communion with the scandal of the Cross. On the contrary, the scandal of sin, incitement or bad example, brings with it the fall of our brother. It is a culpable temptation. Some sorts of behaviour, while not meriting reproof in themselves nevertheless do offend charity since our brother is unable to understand them. So, brotherly love, which is the supreme rule, demands sacrifice and renunciation. For an examination of conscience which embraces the past, the present and future projects, it is right to keep in mind this triple parameter.