Precana Programs &
Cohabitation
Comprehensive Comprehensive Services
100 Four Falls, Suite 312
W. Conshohocken, PA 19428
Copyright @ 2008 Richard P. Fitzgibbons
John Paul II & Cohabitation


A first example of an irregular situation is provided
by what are called “trial marriages,” which many
people today would like to justify by attributing a
certain value to them. But human reason leads one
to see that they are unacceptable, by showing the
unconvincing nature of carrying out an “experiment”
with human beings, whose dignity demands that
they should be always and solely the term of a selfgiving love without limitations of time or of any other
circumstance.
2
John Paul II & Cohabitation

“The Church, for her part, cannot admit such a kind
of union, for further and original reasons which
derive from faith. For, in the first place, the gift of
the body in the sexual relationship is a real symbol
of the giving of the whole person: such a giving,
moreover, in the present state of things cannot take
place with full truth without the concourse of the love
of charity, given by Christ. In the second place,
marriage between two baptized persons is a real
symbol of the union of Christ and the Church, which
is not a temporary or “trial union but one which is
eternally faithful. Therefore between two baptized
persons there can exist only an indissoluble
3
John Paul II & Cohabitation

Such a situation cannot usually be overcome unless
the human person, from childhood, with the help of
Christ’s grace and without fear, has been trained to
dominate concupiscence from the beginning and to
establish relationships of genuine love with other
people. This cannot be secured without a true
education in genuine love and in the right use of
sexuality, such as to introduce the human person in
every aspect, and therefore the bodily aspect too,
into the fullness of the mystery of Christ.
4
John Paul II & Cohabitation

It will be very useful to investigate the causes of this
phenomenon, including its psychological and
sociological aspect, in order to find the proper
remedy”, FC, n. 80
5
The Prevalence of Cohabitation


Prevalence: Over half of all engaged couples have
lived together before marriage (National Marriage
Project, Rutgers University: 2002).
Many dioceses report 75 to 80% of engaged
couples are cohabitating.
6
Precana Challenges


“Eighty to 90 percent of couples are not living chastely prior to
marriage. When we talk about marital intimacy, responsible
parenthood and natural family planning, we are coming to
these engaged couples with a message they’ve never heard
before.”
Dominic Lombardi, 2006. Director of the Family Life Office.
Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
7
Prevalence of Cohabitation


The 2000 Census Bureau figures show that 4 million
couples live together outside of marriage, eight
times as many as in 1970.
3.65 million children - 5 % of children under 18 (73
million) live in a home of cohabitation in the 2004
Census Bureau report

www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70- 114.pdf
8
Why Cohabitate?

Selfishness: The belief that one has the right to use
another person sexually without committing fully to
him or her and without any regard for the
consequences of cohabitation.

Fear of a trusting commitment: People who cohabit
are much more likely to come from families with
parental divorce (American Journal of Sociology,
9604: 1991)

9
Why Cohabitate?

Social acceptance: National surveys have shown
that nearly 66% of high school senior boys and 61%
of girls believe that it is a good idea to live together
before marriage to find out if a couple is compatible
(Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan: 2001).

Lack of a social stigma against cohabitation:
Cohabitation is more readily accepted in Western
cultures (National Marriage Project, Rutgers
University: 2002)
10
Why Cohabitate?

Economic reasons: The couple feels that they can
save money for a wedding, house, etc. by living
together and sharing expenses.

Social pressure: Many couples feel pressured by
friends, colleagues, etc. to move in together once
they are engaged.

Media influence: The media has presented
cohabitation has a healthy and acceptable living
arrangement. (National Marriage Project, Rutgers
University: 2002)
11
Why Cohabitate?

Breaking up is easier: Couples do not need to seek
civil or religious permission to dissolve their union.
(National Marriage Project, Rutgers University:
2002)

Anger/Revenge: As an act of rebelliousness toward
parents or toward Judeo-Christian morality.
.
12
Harmful effects of Cohabitation

A 1992 study of 3,300 cases found that couples
who cohabited prior to marriage have a risk for
divorce, that is about 46% higher than for noncohabiters (Journal of Marriage and the family:
February 1992).

Annual rates of depression among cohabiting
couples are more than three times what they are
among married couples (Journal of Health and
Social Behavior: September 2000).
13
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Women cohabiting relationships are more likely to
suffer physical and sexual abuse than married
women (National Marriage Project, Rutgers
University: 2002).

The more months of exposure to cohabitation, the
less enthusiastic couples are about marriage and
childbearing (Journal of Marriage & Family: 59,
1997).
14
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness,
lower levels of sexual exclusivity and satisfaction,
and poorer relationships with their parents (Journal
of Family Issues: January 1995).

Cohabiters tend to not have an ethic of commitment
that is as strong as non-cohabiters. This could
explain the high rates of divorce among couples that
cohabited prior to marriage (Journal of Marriage and
the Family: August 1997).
15
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of
marriage and pose special risks to children (Just
Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on
Families, Children and Social Policy. New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 2002).

By 2000, the total number of unmarried couples in
America was almost 4.75 million, up from less than
half a million in 1960 (U.S. Census Bureau: 2001).
16
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Cohabitation increases acceptance of divorce
among young people (Journal of Marriage & Family:
59,)

Respondents who cohabited after divorce or
cohabited with their partner in a subsequent
marriage reported, on average, lower levels of
happiness in the remarriage than remarried
respondents who did not cohabit at after the initial
divorce (Journal of Marriage and Family: Vol. 68,
Number 2. May 2006).
17
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation


The longer couples cohabited before marrying, the
more likely they were to resort to heated arguments,
hitting, and throwing objects when conflicts arose in
their subsequent marriage. A longer length of
cohabitation was linked to a greater frequency of
heated arguments, even when controlling for
spouses' age. (Alabama Policy Institute: August
2006).
Cohabitation can contribute to selfishness and later
a lack of openness to children.
18
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Compared with peers who had not cohabited prior to
marriage, individuals who had cohabited reported
higher levels of depression and the level of
depression also rose with the length of cohabitation.
(Alabama Policy Institute: August 2006).
19
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation


16 percent of cohabiting women reported that
arguments with their partners became physical
during the past year, while only 5 percent of married
women had similar experiences
20 percent of cohabiting women reported they had
secondary sex partners, while only 4 percent of
married women
 Waite, L. (2000) The Negative Effects of
Cohabitation, The Responsive Community.
20
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

Cohabiting couples are disadvantaged financially
with the lowest level of wealth among household
types, comparable to families headed by a single
mother. Intact, two-parent families and stepfamilies
have the highest level of wealth.
 Waite, L. (2000) The Negative Effects of
Cohabitation, The Responsive Community.
21
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation
on Children

In 2000, 41% of all unmarried-couple households
included a child under the age of 18. This is up from
only 21% in 1987 (U.S. Census Bureau: March
2000).

One of the major risks to children in cohabiting
households is the high rate of breakup. This leads
to many personal and social difficulties for children
as they face the loss of the security found in home
life children (Just Living Together: Implications of
Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social
Policy. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
22
2002).
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation
and Children

Several studies have shown that children living with
their mother and her unmarried partner have more
behavioral problems and lower academic
performance than children in intact families. (Social
Forces 73-1: 1994).

Fully three quarters of children born in cohabiting
parents will see their parents split up before they
reach age 16. Only one third of children born to
married parents will face a similar fate (National
Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002)
23
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation
and Children

Child abuse is a major problem in cohabiting
households. The number of reported abuse has
been steadily rising over the past ten years (National
Marriage Project, Rutgers University: 2002).

Evidence demonstrates that the most unsafe family
environment for children is one in which the mother
lives with a boyfriend. (The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC: 1997)
24
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation
and Children

Among children who did not live in a consistently
intact family through age 12, those whose mothers
cohabited at some time experienced a higher level
of family instability, measured by the number of
transitions in household structure, than those whose
mothers had not cohabited, 2.6 vs. 1.4 for white
children, and 2.0 vs. 0.7 for Black children, (Journal
of Marriage and Family: Vol. 66, February 2004).
25
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation

As cohabiting unions have become more common,
they have also become less stable. Whereas once
60 percent of cohabiting unions would result in
marriage, now only about half (53%) marry
(Bumpass and Lu 2000).
26
Harmful Effects of Cohabitation
on Children

“The non-parent parent, the man in the substantial
majority of cases, has no explicit legal, financial,
supervisory or custodial rights or responsibilities
regarding the children of his partner. This ambiguity
and lack of enforceable claims by either cohabiting
partner or child makes investment in the relationship
dangerous for both parties and makes Mom’s
boyfriend a weak and shifting base from which to
discipline and guide children.”

Waite, L. (2000) The Negative Effects of Cohabitation, The
Responsive Community.
27

. The proportion of cohabiting couples
with children continues to be more than
4 times as high as it was in 1970.
28
Marital Survey

Single Catholics
Among Catholics who have never married, threequarters say it is at least “a little likely”
that they will marry in the future (25 percent
“somewhat likely” and 29 percent “very
likely”). Never-married Catholics attending Mass
weekly or more often are more likely than those
attending a few times a year or less often to say
they are “very likely” to be married at some point in
their life (41 percent compared to 25 percent).
29
Marital Survey

The most common reason cited for not having
married, among those at least “a little
likely” to be married in the future, is “I haven’t met
the right person” (62 percent)
followed by “I am focused on other aspects of my
life” (47 percent), and “I am personally not ready to
marry” (37 percent).
30
Marital Survey

Only 31 percent of never-married Catholics who say
they are at least “a little likely” to be married in the
future say it is either “somewhat” or “very” important
that their spouse be Catholic. Only 46 percent say it
is either “somewhat” or “very” important that they be
married in the Catholic Church.

www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriage_report.pdf

31
Marital Survey

Fifty-four percent say it is “very important” to them
that they and a future spouse agree on the number
of children they will have. Twenty-one percent
indicate this is “somewhat important.” About two
thirds of single Catholics are aware if the Church’s
teachings regarding openness to children as being
essential to marriage (68 percent) and a similar
percentage agrees “somewhat” or “strongly” that
watching children grow up is life’s greatest joy (66
percent).
© 2008 CARA
32
Faith reflections

The family is the nucleus in which a person first
learns human love and responsibility, generosity and
fraternal concern. Strong families are built on the
foundation of strong marriages. Strong societies are
built on the foundation of strong families," Pope
Benedict XVI, September 14, 2007.
33
Faith reflections

“This is the will of God, your holiness: that you
refrain from immorality, that each of you know how
to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor,
not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not
know God; not to take advantage of or exploit a
brother or a sister in this matter, for the Lord is an
avenger in all things, as we told you before and
solemnly affirmed," I Thes. 4:3.
34
Natural Family Planning
35
Struggle

“The history of humanity is governed by divine
Providence but is currently divided by two loves. The
struggle between two loves: love of self to ‘the point
of indifference to God’ and love of God, ‘to the point
of indifference to the self’ (De Cititate Dei XIV, 28) to
the full freedom from the self for others in the light of
God,” Pope Benedict XVI, August 20, 2008,
Wednesday conference on St. Augustine.
36