Down yonder, a reader writes:
If you have a cohabiting couple that aren’t engaging in conjugal relations, do they become morally responsible for the misperceptions of others?
To which another reader responded:
If the "misperception" is reasonable and they do nothing to correct it, then yes.
This is correct except for the scare quotes around "misperception." If an individual acts in such a way that his behavior reasonably leads others to believe something that is false and he takes no steps to correct it, he becomes responsible for others believing something that is false. He thereby does damage to that person’s doxastic structure (i.e., his belief system).
People don’t often think about it, but doxastic damage is real damage. It isn’t just a place where we don’t know something about the world; it’s where our beliefs are out of alignment with the way the world is. That is an evil in and of itself, and it becomes worse if the falsehood that the person has been led to include in his belief system has a practical impact on his behavior. The problem is most acute if he is led into sin as the result of the false belief.
That being said, people have fallen intellects and, even under the best of circumstances, they will misperceive things and form false beliefs as a result. Often false beliefs result from misperceptions that are not reasonable.
For example, some folks out of anti-Southern bigotry may conclude from the way I talk or dress that I am of substandard intelligence and a racist. Neither of those things is a reasonable inference to draw simply from the fact that a person is Southern. Consequently, I am not responsible for suppressing the way I talk or changing the way I dress in order to keep others from thinking these things. Indeed, if anything I would regard it as more incumbent on my to openly display these things as a way of helping to break the stereotype that is at the core of anti-Southern bigotry.
There also can be situations in which individuals may reasonably misperceive a situation in which a person does not have an obligation to correct the misperception for another reason.
For example, suppose a brother and a sister are living together for economic reasons. Those in the neighborhood may suppose that they are not brother and sister but husband and wife and that they are sleeping together. This is a misperception resulting in a false belief, but it is not reasonable to expect the couple to either (a) stop sharing quarters and incur greater financial hardship or (b) go door-knocking in the neighborhood to make sure everyone knows that they’re brother and sister. The thing to do would be to simply mention the fact if the topic comes up in conversation with neighbors and hope the neighborhood gossip net will take care of the rest.
One aspect of this situation is that, since folks are assuming they’re married, they’re also assuming that the conjugal relations they believe them to be having are marital relations and thus morally licit, so no scandal is being given.
On the other hand, if a couple is living together in a way that reasonably leads others to believe that they are engaging in sinful behavior, even though they are not, then we are in the general territory of the sin of scandal. Conveying a public image of sinfulness weakens society’s moral fabric and encourages others to actually engage in sinful behavior by making it seem socially acceptable. Thus, even if a cohabiting couple is not having conjugal relations, the fact that they are reasonably presumed to be having them can lead others to view cohabiting-with-conjugal-relations as acceptable and engage in it themselves. The number of people and the likelihood that they would be drawn into sin as a result determines the gravity of the scandal.
What about a couple who are civilly married, but not in a valid marriage according to the Church, who have now decided to abstain from conjugal relations while they discern whether to convalidate the marriage? Do they have to move into separate accommodation before it’s not scandal anymore?
I should add that besides the parish priest and two other (devout married Catholic) couples, no one else in the parish knows the marriage isn’t valid, although since neither spouse receives Communion some might guess (one spouse is Catholic, the other hesitating on the brink of becoming Catholic. Not everyone knows that, but it’s a fact more in the public sphere).
Doxastic damage. Wow. I needed this concept. It explains exactly how I’ve felt at times — like “cognitive dissonance”, except more painful.
That said, I did know a couple who cohabited without having sex, in the months leading up to their marriage. Yes, they didn’t have much money. Yes, they needed to grab the big apartment when it came available, because it wouldn’t be available when they needed it. Yes, they slept in totally separate areas. But I still can’t believe that neither of them could beg a place on the floor or the couch from a friend…and I still can’t believe their priest said it’d be okay. If I’d lived anywhere near, I sure as heck would have encouraged ’em to have the one move in with me. Unfortunately, I didn’t. (I did tell ’em they should ask somebody, but they didn’t follow my advice.)
Also, of course, it was stupid of them to put their chastity to that much of a test. (Not to mention their parents’ worried imaginations….)
Amazingly, the situation with a brother and sister living together happened to me recently. I went over to a friend of mine’s house for a book study, whom I had known for 4 years. She is a faithful, single, Catholic girl, so I was surprised when she introduced her roommate, a young man a few years younger than her and I.
I did my best not to jump to any conclusions and just not think about the situation. About a month later, it randomly came up in conversation when I said: “So how long have you known your roommate?” And she basically said “My whole life, he’s my brother”! I began laughing and told her that was a relief because I didn’t know he was her brother.
She then felt bad because she assumed I must have thought the worst, that she was cohabitating with some guy. Well, I had done my best not to think that, and I’m glad I did, since it would have been incorrect.
So, I think the moral is, if you are living with a sibling, when you introduce them to friends, say, “This is my sibling, XYZ”.
Peace in Christ!
The problem is that these days (past a certain age, like college, anyway), even two male or female friends sharing a house create an impression of cohabitation. Especially since saying “This is my friend X” has become one way of saying “This is X, the person I’m sleeping with”. Which is more than a little unfortunate, economically and for other reasons, especially since this idea will probably extend into folks’ old age — when living alone becomes a real disadvantage.