cohabitation???

[NickVA]

I’m a young Catholic(age 15) and I don’t fully understand why the Church is opposed to Cohabitation, (Obviously, assuming that there is no sexual relationship UNTIL they are Married.)

But assuming that the couple stays celibate until marriage, could it even be beneficial for them to at least live in the same building in order to have a “trial” to see if both are compatible and able to stay together in the long term and take the responsibilities of the Catholic marriage.

I have heard some people say that Cohabitation leads to higher divorce rates, and I am puzzled why that is.

So, I am curious why the church takes such a strong stance on this.

 

[edwest2]

This sort of thinking is totally incorrect.

Two people date.

If they find some level of compatibility, they may go steady.

If they talk about marriage then they will go into courtship. No sex. No living together.

If they decide they want to get married they meet each other’s parents. The father sits the young man down. The father had once been the same age as the guy he is talking to. He knows that if his daughter is beautiful, the guy is probably not thinking straight. So he asks the right questions.

“So, how are you going to take care of my daughter?”

If he doesn’t like what he hears, he may counsel the young man to come up with a better plan and to wait until he gets his life to a point where it would be a good idea to get married.

The father also wants to make sure his daughter does not end up with a bum, a drunk or a hothead that will likely hit her to make a point.

Otherwise, they are then engaged. For at least a year, they spend time together, go shopping together and do all the other things they will do as a couple EXCEPT sex.

Up to and including the wedding, the father will tell his daughter that if she is unsure, she can back out.

Then, after a lifelong commitment is made before God and man, then they can have their Wedding Night.

After marriage, they will spend most of their time apart at work or in the home. When the kids show up, it will take both of them to take care of feedings and everything else.

A newly married friend of mine told me, at the time, that he was lucky to get 30 or 45 minutes alone with his wife on any given day. They had a lot of day to day life things to do and talk about.

Commitment makes a relationship. No commitment and either one of you can walk at any time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[1ke]

I’m a young Catholic(age 15) and I don’t fully understand why the Church is opposed to Cohabitation, (Obviously, assuming that there is no sexual relationship UNTIL they are Married.)

In today’s society “living together” involves a sexual relationship in almost all cases. This is, of course, a* grave sin *against the sixth commandment.

In a case where a couple attempts to “live together” without sexual relations, this becomes a near occasion of sin. A couple that is romantically attracted to each other should not place themselves in a situation where they are alone in such a situation lest they be tempted and engage in sexual relations.

This would also be the sin of scandal– which means that someone who looks up to you (like a little sister or brother) might be led into sin by your bad example.

But assuming that the couple stays celibate until marriage, could it even be beneficial for them to at least live in the same building in order to have a “trial” to see if both are compatible and able to stay together in the long term and take the responsibilities of the Catholic marriage

The word you are looking for is chaste, not celibate. Celibacy is a vow that a person takes to remain unmarried. Chastity is a virtue everyone practices in their state of life. Single persons are called to chastity, but so are married persons. They practice the virtue differently depending upon their state in life.

Regarding your question about a “trial” to “see if both are compatible” that is a false notion the secular world gives young people. Love demands more. True love is sacrificial. Those little things that come with living under the same roof are **not **an issue when true, sacramental love is involved.

**What important things would you know about a person from living with them that you would not otherwise know? **

From the Catechism:
2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, “the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim.” Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.

I have heard some people say that Cohabitation leads to higher divorce rates, and I am puzzled why that is.

So, I am curious why the church takes such a strong stance on this.

Yes, Rutgers University did a long term study and that is the result they found. (Rutgers Marriage Project).

Those who live together without the commitment of marriage tend to break up and move on in a repeat pattern-- serial monogamy. They move from relationship to relationship, “testing it out” as you suggest but never quite making the commitment.

 

[DexUK]

The Church expects us to live chastely (that is, not indulging in sexual activity on our own at all and not outside marriage to our beloveds).

Given that cohabitation would present an almost intolerable temptation for a couple, as yet unmarried, who WANT a sexual relationship but aren’t yet SUPPOSED to have one, it would be A: wrong for either party to be forced by the other to try to live under such trying conditions and B: leads to the supposition by others that they aren’t living chastely (i.e. what’s called ‘giving scandal’).

If anyone should suggest that they should experiment before marriage “in case they’re not compatible” then they should be told that it’s perfectly reasonable for a couple to discuss between themselves the terms of intimacy without necessarily carrying out the acts - and, let’s face it, it’s not like sex-ed is unheard of now these days is it? Rightly or wrongly, very few people will nowadays be unaware of what’s involved in marital intimacy.

As for higher divorce rates, one theory would be that by leaping into bed with one another, the normal ‘getting to know you’ phase of a relationship is short-circuited and never gets examined properly, since all the concentration is going on short-term sexual gratification and none on genuine intellectual and spiritual compatibility. As a result, over a longer period of time the relationship breaks down when the conjugal acts become boring and there’s nothing substantive in the foundations of the relationship - i.e. the two partners realise that they don’t really know each other all that well. And by that time there’s children involved, property, legal issues, and the whole thing gets really messy and distressing.

 

[Milesius]

We can’t assume couples placed in such tempting circumstances would stay chaste.

Cohabitation is a near occasion of sin, gives scandal to others, provides a cover for fornication and involves the couple living as if married when they are not.

You don’t need to live with someone to know whether they get on your nerves or not, that is as far as I am concerned a weak excuse used by people who want to enjoy the married lifestyle without making the commitment and sacrifices of actually been married.

And once they are enjoying the married lifestyle without actually getting married they very often quickly come to the conclusion that there is no need to actually ever get married.

In a nutshell the Church takes such a strong stance because it results in the increase of sin and thus the increase of souls going to hell.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m a young Catholic(age 15) and I don’t fully understand why the Church is opposed to Cohabitation, (Obviously, assuming that there is no sexual relationship UNTIL they are Married.)

But assuming that the couple stays celibate until marriage, could it even be beneficial for them to at least live in the same building in order to have a “trial” to see if both are compatible and able to stay together in the long term and take the responsibilities of the Catholic marriage.

I have heard some people say that Cohabitation leads to higher divorce rates, and I am puzzled why that is.

So, I am curious why the church takes such a strong stance on this.

In addition to the very excellent points raised above, there is also the chance that the marriage might not be freely entered into, if the couple is already living together at the time of the engagement. After all, to say “no” is to become homeless - which adds a lot of extra pressure to saying “yes,” even when “no” might be the correct answer.

 

[timotheos]

… it even be beneficial for them to at least live in the same building in order to have a “trial” to see if both are compatible and able to stay together in the long term …

Ahh, to be young again, and see relationships in terms of “compatibility”. It’s a bit like testing out a Cessna by driving it around the taxiway for a few minutes, and if you like the feel of the pedals and yoke, you can buy it.

It is much more important for each party to understand what life in Christ means for themselves, and what “point of no return” means. In other words, maturity. After 18 years of marriage, I think “compatibility” is overrated. The question of committment to marriage and fidelity to God are way more important.

 

[Milesius]

Ahh, to be young again, and see relationships in terms of “compatibility”. It’s a bit like testing out a Cessna by driving it around the taxiway for a few minutes, and if you like the feel of the pedals and yoke, you can buy it.

It is much more important for each party to understand what life in Christ means for themselves, and what “point of no return” means. In other words, maturity. After 18 years of marriage, I think “compatibility” is overrated. The question of committment to marriage and fidelity to God are way more important.

I agree with you, that the spouses understand what marriage is and also what the true Christian understand love is, is far more important. Its about serving the other person not what benefits you can get from the other person.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m a young Catholic(age 15) and I don’t fully understand why the Church is opposed to Cohabitation, (Obviously, assuming that there is no sexual relationship UNTIL they are Married.)

But assuming that the couple stays celibate until marriage, could it even be beneficial for them to at least live in the same building in order to have a “trial” to see if both are compatible and able to stay together in the long term and take the responsibilities of the Catholic marriage.

I have heard some people say that Cohabitation leads to higher divorce rates, and I am puzzled why that is.

So, I am curious why the church takes such a strong stance on this.

Hi Nick,

One really important reason is that people who live together before they marry are much more likely to get divorced. It’s probably because the attitude of wanting to “make sure i’m going to enjoy sharing a house with this person” is focused on the self, not on the other person.

 

[manualman]

A coworker recently married after cohabiting for a few years. Another coworker recently asked him how married life was treating him. The answer: “No different.”

Think about THAT for a second. Marriage is supposed to be the joining of two into one forever. But when you get used to living with each other in an environment very much NOT committed together for life, you become innoculated against the change. The marriage vows appear to change nothing and, indeed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing HAS changed!

Your marriage is supposed to be a PROFOUND change in your life. Your life is no longer yours, but is wed to that of another. In catholicism, we do not believe like some others that the physical world is divorced from the spiritual world. They are one and the same. To live as married in the physical world when you are not committed to marriage undermines your ability to make that entire committment of self.

Do it right. Don’t play act marriage until you ARE married. Then embrace the chaos and the adjustments of newly married life as part of the trauma of learning to give yourself to another. Don’t let it be something in which there is “no difference” before and after.

IMO, this is anothe manifestation of JPII’s Theology of the Body in which the physical features of sexuality are merely manifestations of what is happening in the interior.

 

[tjm190]

First, the “More likely to get a divorce” statement is pure statistical abuse-
marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm

"Cohabitation Facts Rarely Mentioned

In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

If cohabitation is limited to a person’s future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce."

Secondly, the ‘scandal’ argument never seems to stand up to scrutiny. If people are going to assume we are sinning in a given situation, we must stop? Should Catholics not display large music collections because people might assume the music was downloaded illegally? Not arrive on time to a destination because people might assume we were speeding? Not get married if they are infertile because people might assume they are contracting?
Scandal seems to more appropriately to the Nancy Pelosi’s or “God wants you to be wealthy” preachers who give explicit approval to sinful activities, rather than perceived implicit approval.

 

[jmcrae]

First, the “More likely to get a divorce” statement is pure statistical abuse-
marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation/qt/cohabfacts.htm

"Cohabitation Facts Rarely Mentioned

In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

If cohabitation is limited to a person’s future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce."

And again, the reason it’s a sin has nothing to do with future earthly consequences - there are lots of very happy people in this world who are on their way to Hell.

Secondly, the ‘scandal’ argument never seems to stand up to scrutiny. If people are going to assume we are sinning in a given situation, we must stop? Should Catholics not display large music collections because people might assume the music was downloaded illegally? Not arrive on time to a destination because people might assume we were speeding? Not get married if they are infertile because people might assume they are contracting?

Now you’re just getting silly. The whole point of a couple living together is so that they can have sex. Nobody asks his girlfriend or her boyfriend to move in because they want the relationship to remain platonic. Sharing expenses is the reason given to family and friends, but there are easier, far less complicated ways to reduce expenses, if that were the actual goal.

These other situations might come about because of sin, but the sin isn’t the first thing people think of.

 

[tjm190]

And again, the reason it’s a sin has nothing to do with future earthly consequences - there are lots of very happy people in this world who are on their way to Hell.

I didn’t say it did- I was simply responding to a false claim.

Now you’re just getting silly. The whole point of a couple living together is so that they can have sex. Nobody asks his girlfriend or her boyfriend to move in because they want the relationship to remain platonic. Sharing expenses is the reason given to family and friends, but there are easier, far less complicated ways to reduce expenses, if that were the actual goal.

These other situations might come about because of sin, but the sin isn’t the first thing people think of.

What makes you so sure of that? A couple could have sex just as easily without cohabiting, save the necessary walk or drive. Would you object to a couple moving into the same apartment building but renting different rooms?

What on Earth is an easier way to save on overhead costs then by splitting them?

 

[manualman]

What on Earth is an easier way to save on overhead costs then by splitting them?

Splitting them with a plain old fashioned roomate. I got married in 1999 and had roomates for the 4 years prior. Saved a FORTUNE, which allowed us to buy a house upon marriage. And I got to experience a unified physical and spiritual occasion of marriage: we joined together when we joined together. Quite simple really.

 

[tjm190]

Splitting them with a plain old fashioned roomate. I got married in 1999 and had roomates for the 4 years prior. Saved a FORTUNE, which allowed us to buy a house upon marriage. And I got to experience a unified physical and spiritual occasion of marriage: we joined together when we joined together. Quite simple really.

That’s no easier, that’s just about equally difficult (save the fact that you have to find said roommate, and you have to leave your former roommate high and dry when it comes time to tie the knot)

And who’s to say that ‘old fashioned’ roommate can’t be of the opposite gender?

 

[jmcrae]

What on Earth is an easier way to save on overhead costs then by splitting them?

I have yet to meet a young man or young woman who moves in with a person of the opposite sex, who doesn’t suddenly acquire a need for real furniture, or to stock the fridge with healthy choices, or to buy dishes and cookware.

The days of singlehood when you could eat from a can while sitting on milk crate suddenly vanish. I don’t know if it’s an instinctive drive to impress each other, but it seems to me that costs go up when people cohabit - they don’t go down.

 

[tjm190]

I have yet to meet a young man or young woman who moves in with a person of the opposite sex, who doesn’t suddenly acquire a need for real furniture, or to stock the fridge with healthy choices, or to buy dishes and cookware.

The days of singlehood when you could eat from a can while sitting on milk crate suddenly vanish. I don’t know if it’s an instinctive drive to impress each other, but it seems to me that costs go up when people cohabit - they don’t go down.

These are not increases in costs, but rather pushing future costs forward- those things were going to get bought eventually, and eating healthy is not an expensive endeavor (and certainly the benefits outweigh the costs). Furthermore, those are not integral parts of cohabitation.

The only change in cost necessitated by cohabiting is one in rent- now, they might opt for a significantly nicer arrangement that would cancel out or exceed the benefit from going from a 2 singles to 1 double if they truly have no interest in reducing costs (a double of comparable quality generally costs significantly less than 2 singles).

 

[1ke]

Secondly, the ‘scandal’ argument never seems to stand up to scrutiny. If people are going to assume we are sinning in a given situation, we must stop?

That is not what the sin of scandal means at all.

2284 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.” 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.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

 

[rwoehmke]

This sort of thinking is totally incorrect.

Two people date.

If they find some level of compatibility, they may go steady.

If they talk about marriage then they will go into courtship. No sex. No living together.

If they decide they want to get married they meet each other’s parents. The father sits the young man down. The father had once been the same age as the guy he is talking to. He knows that if his daughter is beautiful, the guy is probably not thinking straight. So he asks the right questions.

“So, how are you going to take care of my daughter?”

If he doesn’t like what he hears, he may counsel the young man to come up with a better plan and to wait until he gets his life to a point where it would be a good idea to get married.

The father also wants to make sure his daughter does not end up with a bum, a drunk or a hothead that will likely hit her to make a point.

Otherwise, they are then engaged. For at least a year, they spend time together, go shopping together and do all the other things they will do as a couple EXCEPT sex.

Up to and including the wedding, the father will tell his daughter that if she is unsure, she can back out.

Then, after a lifelong commitment is made before God and man, then they can have their Wedding Night.

After marriage, they will spend most of their time apart at work or in the home. When the kids show up, it will take both of them to take care of feedings and everything else.

A newly married friend of mine told me, at the time, that he was lucky to get 30 or 45 minutes alone with his wife on any given day. They had a lot of day to day life things to do and talk about.

Commitment makes a relationship. No commitment and either one of you can walk at any time.

God bless,
Ed

The world would be a better place if people still did things this way. I remember well how it used to be.

 

[manualman]

That’s no easier, that’s just about equally difficult (save the fact that you have to find said roommate, and you have to leave your former roommate high and dry when it comes time to tie the knot)

And who’s to say that ‘old fashioned’ roommate can’t be of the opposite gender?

It’s easier because there is no awkwardness, no appearance of shacking up, no temptations.

If you’re determined to blow off centuries of wisdom, I’m not going to be able to talk you out of it. But those willing to look at actual outcomes have to admit the the plain old roomate system worked quite well.