Celia and George have decided to move into together after dating each other for a year. They both are working full time, have good jobs and feel ready to settle down. They haven't really discussed marriage, although secretly Celia believes that by agreeing to live with George, marriage will be a natural development that George will eventually be happy to agree to, especially when she gets pregnant.
George really enjoys his relationship with Celia but believes that, since future marriage wasn't explicitly spoken about as a condition for living together, he is free to move on should this relationship sour, although he really intends to do his best to make it last. He thinks that Celia "could finally be the one."
Couples like Celia and George can be found across our society --- and in a significant number of practicing Catholic families. An authentic Catholic response to the growing phenomenon of cohabitation is sought by parents who don't know what to say to their children to live in such a situation; by the couples themselves who want to know where they "stand" in the Church's eyes; and by pastoral leaders who encounter such couples in parish marriage preparation programs.
Recently, two researchers from a Catholic university wrote an article in which they suggested that the Catholic Church allow couples to live together before marriage after a "betrothal ceremony, which would involve a public ritual highlighting free consent to wed in the future." (A Betrothal Proposal, Lawler and Risch, U.S. Catholic). The researchers conclude that "such a process would meet the legitimate Catholic and social requirement that the sexual act must take place only within a stable relationship."
How is the Church to respond in her pastoral care for Celia and George? Is Lawler and Risch's "modest proposal" morally acceptable?
Subjective and objective concerns
It's important for us to recognize that there are really two issues before us in this case: pastoral care and moral analysis. In the best of the Catholic tradition these issues are not competing, but complementary.
The issue of cohabitation reminds us that every moral case involves both the subjective concerns that address sin, culpability and personal responsibility and the objective concern which involves the moral analysis of the act itself. In the case of cohabiting couples, we are clearly dealing with both subjective and objective concerns. The Church always keeps before her the teaching that the cura animarum or "care of the soul" of Celia and George are really the focus of our moral concern and pastoral care. Helping them live a life of Christian discipleship is at the heart of our Catechesis.
At the same time, pastoral care of the individual can never be divorced from the objective dimension of morality. If cohabitation, living together and having sexual intercourse outside of marriage is wrong, can it be pastorally acceptable to support immoral behavior?
Keeping both of these issues in mind, Bishop Michael Pfeifer of San Angelo, Texas, says in his Pastoral Guidelines on Cohabitation (2001) that pastoral leaders who interact with cohabiting couples need to avoid two extremes, "immediately confronting the couple and condemning their behavior" on the one hand, and "ignoring the cohabitation aspect of their relationship" on the other. In other words, a truly pastoral outreach never neglects an honest and objective moral analysis.
The situation today
The U.S. bishops, in "Why Isn't It Good to Live Together Before Marriage" (part of their National Pastoral Initiative on Marriage, 2006), note the following:
---In 2004 more than 5 million Americans were cohabitating compared with 500,000 in 1970.
---Currently 60 percent of all marriages are preceded by cohabitation.
---Fewer than half of cohabitating unions end in marriage.
---On the average, marriage preceded by cohabitation is 46% more likely to end in divorce.
---Studies find that cohabiters are unequally committed. Often, the more committed partner is willing to put up with poor communication, unequal treatment, insecurity and abuse. Typically, women are more vulnerable since they tend to be more committed.
---Cohabitation puts children at risk. Forty percent of cohabiting households include children. After five years, one-half of these couples will have broken up, compared to 15 percent of married parents.
We should be mindful of the fact that only 53 percent of cohabiting unions result in marriage. The percentage of marriages resulting from partners who are involved in a second or even third experiment with cohabitation is even lower.
It is interesting to note that while 76 percent of people living together report plans to marry their partner, only about half do so. Similarly, while many individuals choose to cohabitate because they want to "make sure" of their choice prior to a marriage commitment, they actually are at more of a risk for subsequent divorce than those who did not cohabit before marriage.
The U.S. bishops, in their 1999 document "Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples," suggest that this is the result of the fact that "individuals who choose to cohabit have certain attitudes, issues and patterns that lead them to make the decision to cohabit. These same attitudes, issues and patterns often become the predisposing factors to put them at risk for divorce when they choose to move from cohabitation to marriage."
What are some of the detrimental attitudes and characteristics that cohabitation brings to a relationship that can sabotage a life-long marriage?
---Those who choose to cohabitate are generally less committed to the institution of marriage itself and more tolerant of divorce.
---They are more individualistic.
---They will too often choose marriage, after children have come into the relationship, as a result of pressure to "provide a stable home." While the encouragement of family to "legitimize" a relationship is a good thing in itself, it is not enough to ensure a valid marriage commitment unless the couple chooses it for all the right reasons.
Moral analysis
It is clear that the Church's teaching cannot accept either cohabitation before marriage in general or even after a "betrothal ceremony" as suggested by Lawler and Risch.
While Lawler and Risch point out that some research seems to indicate that cohabitating couples who intend to get married in the Church are at less risk for divorce than those who began cohabitating without an explicit commitment, there remains no evidence to show any positive effects from cohabitating. Since "ends" don't justify "means," even the naïve intention to engage in cohabitation in order to strengthen a future marriage commitment is morally unacceptable.
The Church's teaching on the integrity of marriage as a sign of Christ's union with the Church (Catechism, n. 1617) means that such a union can never be relegated to being simply a "trial" or "practice" time. Rather, a marriage by definition is a commitment to permanent fidelity from its inception. What would be the value of a "betrothal ceremony" prior to a marriage ceremony, if there is already a commitment to marriage?
Sexual intercourse is a gift between married spouses. Sexual relations during cohabitation are forbidden since they take place outside of marriage. Sexual intercourse finds its moral meaning in the total commitment found only in marriage, which is "the covenant of conjugal love freely and consciously chosen, whereby a man and woman accept the intimate community of life and love willed by God" (Familiaris Consortio, n. 11).
Pastoral response
Returning to the case of Celia and George: The research that has been presented suggests that Celia is being at least naïve if not living in denial.
She has accepted an unequal relationship. She likely has morally justified actions that she is not entirely comfortable with (sex outside of marriage) because she has convinced herself that "living together" will somehow make her relationship with George stronger and make him "want" to get married. He, on the other hand, feels pretty comfortable with the relationship "as is" because no long term commitments were asked for or offered.
This relationship is not a good foundation for marriage, and Celia would be best counseled to move out and ask George for a marriage commitment --- or else look for a person who is more mature and knows what commitment is all about.
Pope John Paul II was more than aware of the need to challenge couples who are living together without the benefit of marriage in a way that acknowledges their real desire for an authentic relationship and at the same time encourages them to live with moral integrity.
Pastors, he wrote in 1981, "should make tactful and respectful contact with the couples concerned and enlighten them patiently, correct them charitably and show them the witness of Christian family life in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation" (Familiaris Consortio, n. 81).
In the same vein, the U.S. bishops also suggest that diocesan marriage policies should favor an approach that integrates correction with understanding and compassion since this can be an opportunity for evangelization of the couple, a "teachable moment":
"While couples need to be welcomed with the gospel values of love, understanding, and acceptance, they also need to be challenged by the gospel message of commitment and faithfulness" ("Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples").
The Church understands that for many couples who are involved in cohabitation, the search for and desire for intimacy --- authentic intimacy --- is at the core of their decision. But the Church also knows and teaches that this very quest for authentic intimacy, a quest which is placed in every human heart by God, can be undermined and sabotaged by cohabitation. Sexual intimacy is a means of achieving marital intimacy, a relationship unavailable in simple cohabitation. The U.S. bishops' National Pastoral Initiative on Marriage can be viewed at www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/npim.shtml. The 1981 apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio" can be viewed at www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ (see apostolic exhortations). For additional resource information on marriage, contact the archdiocesan Office of Family Life, (213) 637-7228.
Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. His column appears monthly in The Tidings.
|