Introduction

Today almost half the couples who come for marriage preparation in the Catholic Church are in a
cohabiting relationship. 1 Cohabitation, in a commonly understood sense, means living together in
a sexual relationship without marriage. Living together in this way involves varying degrees of
physical and emotional interaction. Such a relationship is a false sign. It contradicts the meaning
of a sexual relationship in marriage as the total gift of oneself in fidelity, exclusivity, and
permanency.

Over the past twenty-five years cohabitation has become a major social phenomenon affecting
the institution of marriage and family life.2 It is also an extremely perplexing issue for priests,
deacons, and lay pastoral ministers who help couples prepare for marriage in the Church.

In 1988 the NCCB Committee on Pastoral Practices published Faithful to Each Other Forever: A
Catholic Handbook of Pastoral Help for Marriage Preparation. The intent of this volume was to be
a resource for those involved in marriage preparation work. It remains a very useful and
comprehensive pastoral tool.

Faithful to Each Other Forever discussed (pp. 71-77) the question of cohabitation under two
headings: (a) input on cohabitation from personal experiences and the behavioral sciences and
(b) pastoral approaches to cohabiting couples. In this latter section the handbook drew upon the
written policies of a few dioceses to present a range of possible options for working with
cohabiting couples who come seeking marriage in the Church.

Now, nearly twelve years after the original work of Faithful to Each Other Forever, the cumulative
pastoral experience of ministering to cohabiting couples has broadened and deepened. This is
reflected, at least partially, in the increased number of dioceses that now include a treatment of
the issue within their marriage preparation policies.

In this present resource paper the NCCB Committee on Marriage and Family builds upon the
foundation provided by Faithful to Each Other Forever when it first treated the question of
cohabitation. The paper adopts the same two-part structure: empirical data and pastoral
approaches. Its purpose is two-fold:

1. To impart INFORMATION that is current and relevant to all who participate in the
Church's ministry with engaged couples, including those in diocesan leadership who
might be in the process of revising their marriage preparation policies;
2. To offer a DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW of common pastoral approaches now being taken
in U.S. dioceses to the various situations and issues connected with the phenomenon of
cohabiting couples.

This paper is neither an official statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family nor of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It does not offer formal recommendations for
action. It is intended as a resource paper, offering a compilation of resources and a
reflection of the present "state of the question" regarding certain issues of cohabitation.

In this way, it wishes to help:

1. bishops and diocesan staff who are reviewing and possibly revising their marriage
preparation policies;
2. priests, deacons, pastoral ministers, and lay volunteers who want to become more
informed and effective in working with cohabiting couples who come to marriage
preparation programs;
3. those who are responsible for inservice and continuing education of clergy and laity who
carry out the Church's ministry of marriage preparation.
As pointed out in Faithful to Each Other Forever (p.71), the Committee acknowledges a
distinction between sexual activity outside of marriage and cohabitation. They are not identical
matters. One can exist without the other. Couples may engage in sexual intercourse without living
together; other couples may share the same residence but not live in a sexual relationship. The
focus of this paper, however, is on cohabitation understood as both having a sexual relationship
and living together in the same residence. Moreover, in Part Two, the paper focuses even more
narrowly on a segment of cohabiting couples, namely, those who choose to move out of this type
of relationship and into the lifelong commitment of marriage. It is this group of engaged couples
who pose certain unique pastoral challenges.

In both sections of the paper the Committee has chosen a question-and-answer format in order to
organize the material in a concise manner. The Committee is very grateful to Sr. Barbara Markey,
ND, PhD, Director of the Family Life Office in the Archdiocese of Omaha, for helping to compile
and edit the first section. In order to develop the second section, Committee staff collected
marriage preparation policies representing 129 dioceses from around the country. The pastoral
approaches outlined in this section emerge from an analysis of these policies, from knowledge of
current pastoral practice, and from consultations with pastoral ministers. In particular, the
Committee thanks Dr. James Healy, PhD, Director of the Center for Family Ministry in the
Diocese of Joliet, for his assistance with this part of the paper.

Finally, in the course of preparing this report, the Committee on Pastoral Practices and Bishop
David E. Fellhauer, chairman of the Committee on Canonical Affairs reviewed and recommended
changes in the text. We are very grateful for their expert involvement.

Part One
Empirical Information About Cohabitation and Marriage

Those couples who are in a cohabiting relationship and who come to the Church for marriage
preparation represent only a percentage of the total cohabiting population. Nonetheless, to
understand and respond to them one must appreciate some aspects of the broader phenomenon
of cohabitation. This, in turn, is set within a context of widespread sexual activity outside of
marriage. In this section we provide highlights of what social science has discovered about
cohabitation in general and with specific reference to cohabiting couples who eventually marry.3

1. How widespread is cohabitation?

Cohabitation is a pervasive and growing phenomenon with a negative impact on the role
of marriage as the foundation of family. The incidence of cohabitation is much greater
than is indicated by the number of cohabiting couples presenting themselves for
marriage. Slightly more than half of couples in first-time cohabitations ever marry; the
overall percentage of those who marry is much lower when it includes those who cohabit
more than once. Cohabitation as a permanent or temporary alternative to marriage is a
major factor in the declining centrality of marriage in family structure. It is a phenomenon
altering the face of family life in first-world countries.

• 11% of couples in the United States cohabited in 1965--74; today, a little over
half of all first marriages are preceded by cohabitation. (Bumpass & Lu, 1998;
Popenoe and Whitehead, 1999)
 • Across all age groups there has been a 45% increase in cohabitation from 1970
to 1990. It is estimated that 60% to 80% of the couples coming to be married are
cohabiting. (US Bureau of the Census, 1995; Bumpass, Cherlin & Sweet, 1991)

• Overall, fewer persons are choosing to be married today; the decision to cohabit
as a permanent or temporary alternative to marriage is a primary reason
(Bumpass, NSFH Paper #66, 1995) The percent of couples being married in the
United States declined 25% from 1975 to 1995. The Official Catholic Directory
reported 406,908 couples married in the Catholic Church in 1974; in 1995, it
reported a 25% decline to 305,385 couples.

• Only 53% of first cohabiting unions result in marriage. The percentage of couples
marrying from second and third cohabitations is even lower. (Bumpass & Lu,
1998; Bumpass, 1990; Wu, 1995; Wineberg & McCarthy, 1998) 10% to 30% of
cohabitors intend never to marry. (Bumpass & Sweet, 1995)

• All first-world countries are experiencing the phenomenon of cohabitation and the
corrosive impact it has on marriage as the center of family. (Bumpass, NSFH
paper #66, 1995; Hall & Zhao, 1995; Thomasson, 1998; Haskey and Kiernan,
1989)

2. What is the profile of the cohabiting household?

The profile of the average cohabiting household is both expected and somewhat
surprising. Persons with low levels of religious participation, and those who have
experienced disruption in their parents' marriages or a previous marriage of their own are
likely candidates for cohabitation. Persons with lower levels of education and earning
power cohabit more often and marry less often than those with higher education. The
average cohabiting household stays together just over one year and children are part of
two-fifths of these households. Men are more often serial or repeat cohabitors, moving
from woman to woman, while women tend to cohabit only one time.

• 40% of cohabiting households include children, either the children of the

relationship or the children that one or both partners bring to the relationship.
(US. Bureau of Census, 1998, Wu, 1995; Schoen,1992)

• Median duration of cohabitation is 1.3 years. (Bumpass & Lu, 1998; Wu, 1995;
Schoen & Davis, 1992). Previously married persons cohabit more often than
never-married; two-thirds of those separated or divorced and under age 35
cohabit. They are more likely than never-married cohabiting couples to have
children in the household and they are much less likely than never-married to
marry their current partner or someone else. (Wineberg & -McCarthy, 1998; Wu,
1995; Bumpass and Sweet, 1989)

• Those not completing high school are almost twice as likely to cohabit as those
who complete college. 40% of college graduates, however, do cohabit at some
time. Only 26% of women with college degrees cohabit compared to 41% of
women without a high school diploma. The higher the level of education, the
more likely the cohabitor is to marry the partner. (Qian, 1998; Bumpass & Lu,
1998; Thornton, Axinn, Teachman, 1995; Willis & Michael, 1994)
 • Women are likely to cohabit only once and that with the person they
subsequently marry; men are more likely to cohabit with a series of partners.
(Bumpass & Sweet, 1989, Teachman and Polanko, 1990)

• Individuals, especially women, who experienced disruption in their parents'

marriage are more likely to cohabit than those who had parents with stable
marriages. (Axinn & Thornton, 1992; Kiernan, 1992; Black & Sprenkle, 1991;
Bumpass & Sweet, 1989)

• Persons with low levels of religious participation and who rate religion of low
importance are more likely to cohabit and less likely to marry their partner than
those who consider religion important and practice it. There is no difference in
frequency of cohabitation by religious denomination; there is a significant
difference in cohabitation frequency by level of religious participation. (Krishnan,
1998; Lye & Waldron, 1997; Thornton, Axinn & Hill, 1992; Liejbroer, 1991;
Sweet, 1989)

• In general, those in cohabiting households are more independent, more liberal in

attitude and more risk-oriented than non-cohabitors. (Clarkberg, Stolzenberg &
Waite, 1995; Cunningham & Antill, 1994; Huffman, Chang, Rausch & Schaffer,
1994; DeMaris & MacDonald, 1993)

3. What are the reasons for cohabitation?

The declining significance of marriage as the center of family is in large part a result of
growing secularization and individualization in first-world cultures. Aversion to long term
commitments is one of the identifying characteristics of these trends and a major reason
for cohabitation. Key milestones previously associated with marriage, such as sexual
relationships, child bearing and establishing couple households, now occur without
marriage. Individuals choose to cohabit under the influence of these cultural values but
also for very individual reasons. Some are seeking to ensure a good future marriage and
believe that a "trial marriage" will accomplish this; many are simply living together
because it seems more economically feasible or because it has become the social norm.
In general, cohabitors are not a homogenous or monolithic group, however fully their
general characteristics can be described. The reasons for choosing cohabitation are
usually mixed: cohabitation may be in equal parts an alternative to marriage and an
attempt to prepare for marriage.

There are both broad cultural reasons and a range of individual reasons for cohabitation.

• The cultural reasons are descriptive of most first world countries: changing
values on family and decline in the importance of marriage; (Bumpass, NSFH
#66, 1995; Clarkberg, Stolzenberg & Waite, 1995; Parker, 1990)

• Declining confidence in religious and social institutions to provide guidance;

(Nicole & Baldwin, 1995; Thornton, Axinn & Hill, 1992)

• Delaying of marriage for economic or social reasons while sexual relationships

begin earlier. 85% of unmarried youth are sexually active by age 20. "Marriage
no longer signifies the beginning of sexual relationship, the beginning of child
bearing or the point at which couples establish joint households" (Bumpass,#66,
 1995). (Popenoe & Whitehead, 1999; Peplau, Hill & Rubin, 1993; Rindfuss & Van
den Heuvel, 1990)

The individual reasons for cohabitation are varied:

• Fear of or disbelief in long-term commitment; (Nicole & Baldwin, 1995; Bumpass,

DeMaris & MacDonald, 1993)

• Desire to avoid divorce; (Nicole & Baldwin, 1995; Thornton, 1991; Bumpass,
1990)

• Desire for economic security; (Rindfuss & Van den Heuvel, 1990; Schoen &
Owens, 1992)

• Stage of personal development, escape from home, "rite of passage"; (Nicole &
Baldwin, 1995)

• Desire for stability for raising of children; (Wu, 1995; Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin,
1991; Manning & Lichter, 1996)

• Pressure to conform to current mores that having cohabiting partner is measure

of social success, personal desirability, adult transition; (Rindfuss, Van Den
Heuvel, 1990; Schoen & Owens, 1992)

• Desire to test the relationship; (Nicole & Baldwin, 1995; Bumpass, Sweet &
Cherlin, 1991; Bumpass, 1990)

• Rejection of the institution of marriage and desire for an alternative to marriage;

(Sweet & Bumpass, 1992; Rindfuss, Van den Heuvel, 1990)

4. What about cohabiting and marriage?

Overall, less than half of cohabiting couples ever marry. Those who do choose to marry
are in some part counter-culture to the growing view that it is certainly not necessary and
perhaps not good to marry. Those who choose to marry instead of continuing to cohabit
are the "good news" in a culture that is increasingly anti-marriage. Those cohabiting
couples who move to marriage seem to be the "best risk" of a high risk group: they have
fewer risk factors than those cohabitors who choose not to marry. Even so, they still
divorce at a rate 50% higher than couples who have never cohabited. They are a high
risk group for divorce and their special risk factors need to be identified and addressed,
especially at the time of marriage preparation, if the couples are to build solid marriages.

Only 50% to 60% of cohabitors marry the persons with whom they cohabit at a given
time. 76% report plans to marry their partner but only about half do. The percentage of
couples marrying after second and third cohabitation is even lower. (Brown & Booth,
1996; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989)

• Up to 30% of cohabitors intend never to marry. (Bumpass & Sweet, 1995)

 • 20% of cohabiting partners disagree about whether or not they intend to marry.
(Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin, 1991)

• When cohabitors do marry, they are more at risk for subsequent divorce than
those who did not cohabit before marriage. In the United States, the risk of
divorce is 50% higher for cohabitors than non-cohabitors. In some western
European countries, it is estimated to be 80% higher. (Bumpass & Sweet, 1995;
Hall & Zhao, 1995; Bracher, Santow, Morgan & Trussell, 1993; DeMaris & Rao,
1992; Glenn, 1990)

• When previously married cohabitors marry, their subsequent divorce rate is

higher than that of cohabiting couples who have not been previously married.
(Wineberg & McCarthy, 1998; Wu, 1995; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989)

• Those who cohabit more than once prior to marriage, serial or repeat cohabitors,
have higher divorce rates when they do marry than those who cohabit only once.
(Brown & Booth, 1996; Stets,1993; Thomson & Colella, 1991)

• There is some indication that the divorce rate is higher for people who cohabit for
a longer period of time, especially over three years. The data on this are mixed.
(Lillard Brien & Waite, 1995; Thomson & Colella, 1991; Bennett, Blanc & Bloom,
1988)

• Cohabitors who marry break up in the earlier years of marriage. Cohabitors and
noncohabitors have the same rate of marriage stability if the marriage remains
intact over seven years. (Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin, 1991; Bennett, Blanc, &
Bloom, 1988)

• Cohabitors who do choose to marry appear to be of lesser risk for later divorce
than those cohabitors who choose not to marry would be. They appear to be the
best risk of a high risk group. (Thomson & Colella, 1991)

5. What are the factors that put cohabitors who marry at risk?
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 high risk for divorce when they do
choose to move from cohabitation to marriage. The cohabitation experience itself creates
risk factors, bad habits, that can sabotage the subsequent marriage. These attitudes and
patterns can be identified and brought to the couple preparing for marriage for
examination, decision-making, skill-building, change. Without creating "self-fulfilling
prophecies," those preparing cohabiting couples for marriage can help them identify and
work with issues around commitment, fidelity, individualism, pressure, appropriate
expectations.

Many studies explore why cohabitors are more at risk when they marry. The research
suggests that there are two overlapping and reinforcing sources for risk:
• Predisposing attitudes and characteristics they take into the marriage;
• Experiences from the cohabitation itself that create problem patterns and
behaviors.
Predisposing Attitudes and Characteristics:

• Cohabitors as a group are less committed to the institution of marriage and more
accepting of divorce. As problems and issues arise to challenge the marriage,
they are more likely to seek divorce as the solution. (Lillard, Brien & Waite, 1995;
Bracher, Santow, Morgan & Trussell, 1993; Thomson & Colella, 1991; Bennett,
Blanc, & Bloom, 1988)

• "Sexual exclusivity" is less an indicator of commitment for cohabitors than for

noncohabitors. In this regard, cohabitation is more like dating than marriage.
After marriage, a woman who cohabited before marriage is 3.3 times more likely
to be sexually unfaithful than a woman who had not cohabited before marriage.
(Forste & Tanfer, 1996)

• Cohabitors identify themselves or the relationship as poor risk for long-term

happiness more often than do non-cohabitors. There is evidence that some
cohabitors do have more problematic, lower-quality relationships with more
individual and couple problems than noncohabitors. Often this is why they feel
the need to test the relationship through cohabitation. There is the probability that
some of these significant problems will carry over into the marriage relationship.
(Lillard, Brien, Waite, 1995; Thomson & Colella, 1991; Booth & Johnson, 1988)

• Cohabitors tend to hold individualism as a more important value than non-

cohabitors do. While married persons generally value interdependence and the
exchange of resources, cohabitors tend to value independence and economic
equality. These values do not necessarily change just because a cohabiting
couple decides to move into marriage. (Clarkberg, Stolzenberg & Waite, 1995;
Waite & Joyner, 1992; Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin, 1991)

• Cohabitors can allow themselves to marry because of pressure from family and
others and because of pressure to provide a stable home for children. While it is
generally better for the children in a cohabiting household or a child to be born to
a cohabiting couple to be raised in a stable marriage, this is not by itself sufficient
reason for the marriage. While family and friends are often right to encourage
marriage for a cohabiting couple, a marriage made under such pressure is
problematic unless the couple chooses it for more substantial reasons. (Barber &
Axinn, 1998; Wu, 1995; Mahler, 1996; Manning & Smock 1995; Teachman &
Polanko, 1990)

• Cohabitors are demonstrated to have inappropriately high expectations of

marriage that can lead them to be disillusioned with the ordinary problems or
challenges of marriage. Cohabitors generally report lower satisfaction with
marriage after they marry than do noncohabitors. There is danger that they think
they have "worked out everything" and that any further challenges are the fault of
the institution of marriage. (Brown, 1998; Nock, 1995; Booth & Johnson, 1988)

Experiences from the Cohabitation Itself

• The experience of cohabitation changes the attitudes about commitment and

permanence and makes couples more open to divorce. (Axinn & Barber, 1997;
Nock 1995; Schoen & Weinick 1993; Axinn & Thornton, 1992)
 • Cohabitors have more conflict over money after they marry than noncohabitors
do. Often they have set patterns of autonomy or competition about making and
handling money during the time of cohabitation and this carries over to the
marriage. Many couples have one pattern of money handling in the cohabitation
household and have not discussed clearly how one or the other individual
expects this pattern to change after marriage. (Singh & Lindsay, 1996; Ressler,
Rand, Walters & Meliss, 1995; Waite, 1995)

• Domestic violence is a more common problem with cohabitors than with married
persons and this pattern will carry over to a subsequent marriage relationship.
Cohabiting partners can have a lesser felt need to protect the relationship while
they are cohabiting because they do not see it as permanent. If this is the case,
some will begin dysfunctional patterns of problem-solving. The existence of the
partner's children in the relationship or stress over the permanency of the
relationship are common causes of conflict and sometimes violence. (Jackson,
1996; McLaughlin, Leonard & Senchak 1992; Stets & Straus, 1989)

• Cohabitors who marry are less effective at conflict resolution than those who did
not cohabit. Either a fear of upsetting an uncommitted relationship or the lack of
need to protect a temporary relationship can be factors that lead cohabiting
couples into poor patterns of conflict resolution which they then carry into
marriage. (Booth & Johnson, 1988)

• Using sex as a controlling factor can be a negative pattern which cohabiting

couples can bring to their subsequent marriage. Reinforcement of negative
family of origin patterns can also have occurred in the cohabiting relationship and
be carried over to marriage. Both of these patterns are common issues that
dating couples carry into marriage, but they can be exaggerated by the
cohabitation experience.(Waite & Joyner, 1996; Waite, 1995; Thornton & Axinn,
1993)

Part Two
Pastoral Issues with Cohabiting Couples in Marriage Preparation

Preparation for marriage begins long before the couple approaches the priest or pastoral
minister. In his Apostolic Exhortation On the Family (Familiaris Consortio, #81), Pope John
Paul II strongly urges that young people be educated about chastity, fidelity, and the
meaning of marriage as a sacrament. Religious education, parish based catechetical
programs, and chastity curricula in elementary schools are all part of this effort. The
Catholic Chastity Curriculum Directory (NCCB/USCC, Fall 1999), a directory of available
materials that follow Catholic teaching, can be a helpful resource.

The high school years, in particular, can be a prime time for dealing with these issues,
when dating, and the desire to date, are foremost in the minds of adolescents. During this
time they can be given the spiritual foundation that helps them to make informed, faith-
filled and life-giving choices throughout their lives. With this foundation, it can be hoped
that couples will choose not to cohabit before marriage.

Nonetheless, we know that many couples do live together before they marry. Many
pastoral ministers identify cohabitation as the most difficult issue they deal with in
marriage preparation. They are faced with the dilemma of addressing a situation that is
contrary to our moral principles while attempting to validate and sanctify the relationship
of the couple through the Sacrament of Marriage (Archdiocese of Miami, Marriage
Preparation Guidelines, 1997; Diocese of Phoenix, Marriage Preparation Policy Handbook,
1998).4

We offer the following pastoral suggestions to priests, deacons, and pastoral ministers
who prepare couples for marriage. They are intended to provide general guidance only,
since each couple's pastoral needs and circumstances are unique. In developing these
suggestions we join with many dioceses in turning to Familiaris Consortio for inspiration.
"In Familiaris Consortio the Holy Father offers sound guidance," says the Miami
Archdiocese's marriage preparation policy, referring to the challenge posed by cohabiting
couples.

In section 81 of Familiaris Consortio Pope John Paul II points out that de facto free unions,
i.e., those unions without any publicly recognized institutional bond, are an increasing
concern. He recognizes that various factors can lead a couple into a free union. These
include difficult economic, cultural or religious situations, extreme ignorance or poverty,
and a certain psychological immaturity that makes couples afraid to enter into a
permanent union.

The Pope continues: "Each of these elements presents the Church with arduous pastoral
problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and
moral...and also social consequences...The pastors and the ecclesial community should
take care to become acquainted with such situations and their actual causes, case by
case. They 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, #81).

In the discussion below, we attempt to take the Holy Father's advice and apply it to
concrete questions that arise during marriage preparation with cohabiting couples. Our
goal is to work through the challenges--"smooth the path"--so that cohabiting couples will
be able to celebrate a sacramental marriage.

1. How to begin working with cohabiting couples who approach the church for
marriage preparation?

Faithful to Each Other Forever notes that two extremes are to be avoided: (1)
Immediately confronting the couple and condemning their behavior and (2)
Ignoring the cohabitation aspect of their relationship. In the decade following the
document's publication, pastoral experience and diocesan policies have borne out
the wisdom of this approach. The majority of policies and practices follow a middle
way between the two extremes, one that integrates general correction with
understanding and compassion.

The U.S. bishops' plan for young adult ministry, Sons and Daughters of the Light,
points out that during marriage preparation the Church connects with more young
adults than at any other time outside Sunday Mass. "For some, this may be their
first step back into church life" (Sons and Daughters of the Light, p. 30). Marriage
preparation is an opportunity for evangelization and catechesis. The Gary Diocese
points out that "this is a ‘teachable moment' and the parish priest must be cautious
lest he alienate the couple from the church community. This calls for pastoral
support in the couple's plans for the future rather than chastising them for the
past" (Guidelines for Marriage as a Sacrament, Diocese of Gary, 1996).
 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. Faithful to Each Other Forever points out that in the
past pastoral ministers often overlooked the cohabitation, not pressing the couple
too hard for fear of alienating them from the church. Because of the awkwardness
of dealing with the situation, some chose to ignore the entire issue. Increasingly,
however, pastoral ministers have abandoned this approach in favor of addressing
the cohabitation gently but directly.

The Church has consistently taught that human love "demands a total and
definitive gift of persons to one another" that can only be made in marriage
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2391). Since cohabitation violates the
Church's teaching about sexual love and marriage, church ministers must speak
and teach about it. Doing so, as one diocese points out, "is an act of love for the
couple in the process of spiritual growth" (Pastoral Care of Sexually Active/Co-
Habiting Couples Before Marriage, Diocese of Peoria, 1997).

How can pastoral ministers know if a couple is cohabiting? This can be a delicate
situation. Very few diocesan policies offer suggestions for surfacing this issue
during marriage preparation. Given the potentially harmful effects of cohabitation
on marital stability, however, pastoral ministers are beginning to recognize a
responsibility to raise the issue.

Certain tip-offs (e.g., giving the same address and/or telephone number) can alert
the pastoral minister that the couple may be cohabiting. Some couples are quite
open about their living arrangements. A pastoral minister who is sensitive but
straightforward can encourage a similarly candid attitude on the part of the couple.
Some pastoral ministers discuss cohabitation in general terms, noting the issues it
raises and the potentially harmful effects on the marriage.

However it surfaces, cohabitation should be discussed early in the marriage

preparation process. If it is not possible or advisable to discuss it immediately, it
should be flagged as an issue to be addressed at a subsequent face-to-face
meeting.

Some marriage preparation programs use the pre-marital inventory FOCCUS

(Facilitating Open Couple Communication, Understanding and Study). FOCCUS
now includes discussion questions for cohabiting couples, and the FOCCUS
Manual includes additional material on facilitating discussion with this group.

2. What are specific objectives in doing marriage preparation with cohabiting

couples?

The general goal of marriage preparation with all couples is the same: To create a
clear awareness of the essential characteristics of Christian marriage: unity,
fidelity, indissolubility, fruitfulness; the priority of the sacramental grace that
unites the couple to the love of Christ; and the willingness to carry out the mission
proper to families in the educational, social and ecclesial areas (Pontifical Council
for the Family, Preparation for the Sacrament of Marriage, #45).

For cohabiting couples, a specific goal may be added: To encourage the couple to
reflect on their situation and why they decided to cohabit and to provide insights
into possible consequences, factors that may present special challenges to them
or put them at risk for later marital disruption. (See, for example, marriage
preparation policies in the Dioceses of Rockford (1992), Sioux Falls (1988), and
Peoria (1997), among others).
 To accomplish this second goal, the pastoral minister invites the couple to reflect
on their experience of living together and its implications for sacramental
marriage. The following questions (or appropriate variations), drawn from a newly
developed section in FOCCUS, can be discussed:

1. Why did you originally choose to live together? How does the commitment
you wish to make now differ from the commitment you made when you
decided to cohabit?

2. How does your family and community feel about your living together? How
do these feelings affect you?

3. What are your reasons for wanting to marry at this time? Is there any
reluctance to marry? Is pressure from family or around children a major
reason for marriage now?

4. What have you learned from your experience of living together? How do
you expect your relationship to grow and change in the future? Does either
of you expect marriage to be free from times of discontent? How well do
you deal with conflict? Have you agreed on any changes in the way you will
handle money after you are married?

5. Why do you want to marry in the Catholic Church at this time? Do you
understand the concerns the Church has had about your cohabiting
situation?

6. What does marriage as a sacrament mean to you?

7. What do you think will be the largest barriers to a lifelong marriage for you?
How do you think you will be especially challenged by the vow of
faithfulness?

After these discussions, the pastoral minister may ask the couple how the
information gained from the preparation process has raised their understanding of
church teaching and cohabitation, and what response they will make in light of this
knowledge. At this point the pastoral minister may ascertain the couple's
readiness and ability to enter into a sacramental marriage.

3. What distinctions are made among cohabiting couples?

Some diocesan policies (e.g., Cleveland (1988), Buffalo (1992), Michigan Dioceses'
Common Policy) note the following differences among various types of cohabiting
couples, based on the reasons given for the cohabitation. Each has distinct
pastoral implications.

1. For couples who have seriously planned for marriage, and who decided to
live together for practical reasons such as finance or convenience, the
pastoral minister can focus on their understanding of the meaning of
sacrament and the commitment to permanence and stability in marriage.

2. For couples whose cohabitation seems more casual, and for whom no
previous commitment seems to have been made, in addition to the
 treatment of commitment and sacrament, special attention is given to
overall readiness for marriage and for permanent lifetime commitment.

3. For couples whose reasons for seeking marriage are more for the sake of
appearance, or to accommodate social or family needs, and little evidence
is presented to indicate either spiritual or psychosocial maturity for
marriage, a postponement of further marriage preparation, at least at this
time, can be considered.

4. Should cohabiting couples be encouraged to separate prior to the wedding?

Many diocesan marriage preparation policies suggest that pastoral ministers
encourage cohabiting couples to separate. They recognize that this is a desirable
goal to propose and to achieve -- not because the Church is so concerned with the
fact of separate addresses but because it declares that conjugal love needs to be
definitive; "it cannot be an arrangement 'until further notice'" (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, #1646). Even if the couple chooses not to separate, they can be
encouraged to live chastely before marriage. "They should see in this time of
testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of
receiving one another from God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2350).

The challenge to separate or, if continuing to live together, to live chastely, can be
fruitfully posed at the end of a process in which the church's teaching on marriage
and sexuality is carefully explained. This approach has been adopted by the
bishops of Kansas, among others. They point out that during marriage preparation
couples must make decisions. One of these concerns living together. Priests and
pastoral ministers point out the many good reasons not to cohabit, and invite
couples to follow the teachings of the Church. As the Kansas bishops stess:
"Ultimately, the engaged couple must make the decision to follow Christ and His
Church." (A Better Way, 1998).

The Diocese of Peoria follows a similar approach. After suitable instruction, "The
priest must ask the couple to consider chaste and separate living and give the
couple time to reflect on their decision" (Pastoral Care of Sexually Active/Co-
Habiting Couples Before Marriage, Appendix E)

Priests and pastoral ministers report that couples who separate often benefit from
the experience. "Priests say that many couples return...expressing amazement at
new insights through living separately. The couple's experience has changed their
hearts" (Sioux Falls). Separation can give the couple new perspectives on their
relationship; it is also a tangible sign of the couple's free, loving decision to accept
the Church's vision of marriage and sexuality.

Some couples are not normally asked to separate, e.g., those with children. Ideally,
before challenging a couple to separate the minister knows their particular
circumstances and why they decided to live together. A couple may have what
seem to them good reasons (e.g., finances, safety) for living together. A change in
living arrangements can pose practical problems. The Diocese of Sioux Falls,
recognizing this situation, notes that "Parishes may be challenged to help couples
cope with such difficulties so that they can live apart" (Preparing for Marriage in
the Diocese of Sioux Falls).

5. If a couple is cohabiting, can marriage be denied or delayed?

 1. Denial of marriage -- Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical
impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on
the basis of cohabitation. Marriage preparation may continue even if the
couple refuses to separate. Pastoral ministers can be assured that to assist
couples in regularizing their situation is not to approve of cohabitation.

2. Delay or postponement of the marriage -- Some diocesan policies note that

in certain circumstances a postponement of the wedding might be in order.
In these cases additional time might be needed to address the issues
raised by cohabitation. For example, a concern for the impact of
cohabitation on the couple's freedom to marry could be a reason to delay
the marriage until this issue is sufficiently explored as part of marriage
preparation (Archdiocese of Detroit; Archdiocese of Miami)

A few dioceses point out that cohabitation may prolong the marriage preparation
process because of the need to evaluate the couple's attitudes and understanding
of the Church's teachings on marriage and sexuality. One policy states: "If there is
not sufficient awareness on the couple's part of the essential elements of Catholic
teaching on the sanctity of marriage and sexual relations and of the commitment,
fidelity, and permanence needed in marriage, then the marriage should be
postponed until such awareness has developed" (Preparing for Marriage, Diocese
of Rapid City).

Since couples have a natural and canonical right to marriage, any delay beyond
the normal waiting period for all couples is a serious matter. Care must be taken to
ensure that delay is not used as a punishment for a couple's continued
cohabitation. (See Bishop John D'Arcy's letter to priests of the Diocese of Fort
Wayne-South Bend, ORIGINS, October 1, 1998.)

6. Should cohabiting couples be encouraged to celebrate the sacrament of

reconciliation prior to their wedding?

With all couples, celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is properly

encouraged as part of marriage preparation for the Catholic party or parties. The
Catechism states: "It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare
themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of
penance" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1622).

It should be noted that absolute moral rectitude is not demanded for sacraments to
be celebrated. Familiaris Consortio offers this guidance: "The faith of the person
asking the church for marriage can exist in different degrees, and it is the primary
duty of pastors to bring about a rediscovery of this faith and to nourish it and bring
it to maturity. But pastors must also understand the reasons that lead the church
also to admit to the celebration of marriage those who are imperfectly disposed"
(#68). The document further points out that the baptized couple, by their right
intention, have already accepted God's plan regarding marriage and, at least
implicitly, consent to what the church intends to do when it celebrates marriage. It
cautions: "As for wishing to lay down further criteria for admission to the ecclesial
celebration of marriage, criteria that would concern the level of faith for those to be
married, this would above all involve grave risks" (#68).

7. Is it possible for cohabitation to scandalize the community?

Many diocesan marriage preparation policies note the possibility of scandal.
 Scandal is a multi-faceted reality. In society as a whole, cohabitation neither
carries the stigma nor causes the scandal that it did just two generations ago. As
the bishops of Kansas point out, "As society no longer adheres to traditional moral
values and norms, scandal becomes less and less a concern to many people" (A
Better Way, p. 9). The burden of scandal falls not just on the cohabiting couple, but
on our sexually permissive society.

The cohabiting couple is living contrary to the Church's teaching on marriage and
sexual love. By acting as if they are married when they are not, they risk
scandalizing the believing community. It is also possible to cause scandal,
however, through a lack of understanding and compassion for couples in irregular
situations. Whether and how couples are welcomed can mean the difference
between alienation from the Church or renewed involvement.

Moreover, parents and pastoral ministers may have a different opinion of how
scandal occurs. Parents who were deeply distressed by their children's
cohabitation are relieved when the son or daughter approaches the Church for
marriage. They believe that the scandal is easing. At this point, however, priests
and pastoral ministers fear that the scandal is about to start. Both viewpoints have
some merit, and point to the need for understanding different perspectives on
scandal.

8. Is a simple wedding ceremony most appropriate for cohabiting couples?

A few diocesan policies suggest that a simple wedding ceremony is most
appropriate for cohabiting couples. (Those policies that explain "simple" usually
do so in terms of number of people in the wedding party.) This is the most
common consequence of a failure to separate. One policy states that since the
couple is choosing to appear as husband and wife to the community, then their
wedding ceremony should reflect this choice and be small and simple. Others
(e.g., Memphis) state that a large wedding raises the possibility of serious scandal.

The Code of Canon Law gives no special consideration for marriages of cohabiting
couples. The general norm states that the pastor and the ecclesial community are
to see that the couple has a "fruitful liturgical celebration of marriage clarifying
that the spouses signify and share in the mystery of unity and of fruitful love that
exists between Christ and the Church" (c. 1063, 3°).

The Catechism states: "Since marriage establishes the couple in a public state of
life in the Church, it is fitting that its celebration be public, in the framework of a
liturgical celebration, before the priest (or a witness authorized by the Church), the
witnesses, and the assembly of the faithful" (1663).

Some pastoral ministers are concerned that a simple celebration hinders the
couple's ability to understand the communal dimension of the sacrament. They
point out that cohabiting couples are the least likely to realize the involvement of
the Christian community in their marriage. Having a wedding with only immediate
family and witnesses simply underscores their impression that marriage is a
private event. They need to appreciate the reciprocal commitment between the
couple and the Christian community.

The Archdiocese of Omaha points out that even for cohabiting couples the
celebration of marriage is an act of the Church's public worship. It states: "The
same liturgical principles and norms apply for a cohabiting couple as for any other
couple. Marriage preparation for cohabiting couples should not begin with or be
 based upon a decision about the kind or size of the wedding ceremony that will be
allowed."

Conclusion

Since widespread cohabitation is a fairly recent phenomenon, many pastoral ministers are
still learning how to address the issue in marriage preparation. The Committee on
Marriage and Family hopes that this paper provides helpful guidance, but it acknowledges
that more can be done. One challenge is to provide additional formation for those who
prepare couples for marriage so that they can more effectively handle the issues raised by
cohabitation. Another challenge is learning how to discuss cohabitation in the various
settings in which marriage preparation takes place.

Above all, when cohabiting couples approach the church for marriage we encourage
pastoral ministers to recognize this as a teachable moment. Here is a unique opportunity
to help couples understand the Catholic vision of marriage. Here, too, is an opportunity for
evangelization. By supporting the couple's plans for the future rather than chastising them
for the past, the pastoral minister can draw a couple more deeply into the church
community and the practice of their faith. Treated with sensitivity and respect, couples can
be helped to understand and live the vocation of Christian marriage.
Cohabitation, sometimes called consensual union or de facto marriage, refers to unmarried
heterosexual couples living together in an intimate relationship. Cohabitation as such is not a new
phenomenon. It has, however, developed into a novel family form in contrast with conventional
marriage. Part of this change is associated with the absolute rise in cohabitational relationships.
Since the 1970s, many countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, have
experienced rapid growth in their cohabitation rates. Although these numbers generally remain
small relative to families composed of married couples, the absolute numbers of cohabiting
couples have increased dramatically. Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo throughout the
nineteenth century and until the 1970s. Nonmarital unions have become common because the
meaning of the family has been altered by individualistic social values that have progressively
matured since the late 1940s. As postwar trends illustrate, marriage is no longer the sanctified,
permanent institution it once was. The proliferation of divorce, remarriage, stepfamilies, and single
parenthood has transformed the institution of the family. With these structural changes, attitudes
toward nonmarital unions have become increasingly permissive.

Because cohabitation involves a shared household between intimate partners, it has

characteristics in common with marriage. Similarities include pooled economic resources, a
gender division of labor in the household, and sexual exclusivity. However, even though the day-
to-day interaction between cohabiting couples parallels that of married couples in several ways,
important distinctions remain. While some argue that cohabitation has become a variant of
marriage, the available evidence does not support this position. Kingsley Davis (1985) points out
that if cohabitation were simply a variant of marriage then its increased prevalence vis-à-vis
marriage would lack significance. Sociologists treat cohabitation as a distinct occurrence not just
because it has displaced marriage, but also because it represents a structural change in family
relationships.

Cohabitational relationships are distinct from marital ones in several crucial ways. Although these
differences have become less pronounced with the increase in cohabitation (and could thus
eventually vanish), the following characteristics define the essential boundaries between
cohabitation and marriage.

1. Age. People in cohabitational relationships tend to be younger than people in marital

relationships. This supports the argument that cohabitation is often an antecedent to
marriage. The majority of cohabitational relationships dissolve because the couples
involved get married;
2. Fertility. Children are less likely to be born into cohabitational relationships than they are
 into marital relationships;
3. Stability. Cohabitational relationships are short-lived compared to marital relationships. In
Canada, only about 12 percent of cohabitations are expected to last ten years. By
comparison, 90 percent of first marriages are expected to last this long (Wu 2000). The
majority of cohabitational relationships terminate within three years. Although many of
these relationships end because of marriage, the lack of longevity in cohabitations as
such illustrates that these relationships have yet to develop into a normative variant of
marriage;
4. Social acceptance. Even with its numerical growth and spread throughout society,
cohabitation is not as socially acceptable as marriage. Cohabitation is socially tolerated in
part because it is expected that cohabiting partners will eventually become married.
Indeed, according to U.S. data, about three-quarters of never married cohabitors had
definite plans for marriage or believed they would eventually marry their partner
(Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin 1991). The youthful profile of cohabitation shows that
marriage is still the preferred choice of union for most couples. If cohabitation were a
variant of marriage, it would have a larger prevalence in older cohorts. Although many
people have chosen to delay marriage, most have not rejected it completely. A major
reason cohabitations have lower fertility than marriage is because couples tend to
abandon cohabitation when children are in the immediate future (Manning and Smock
1995). In most countries, marriage is perceived as the most secure and legitimate union
when children are involved;

5. State recognition. Unlike marriage, cohabitation is not sanctioned by the state, and
persons in nonmarital unions do not necessarily acquire specific legal rights and
obligations through their union. Without a formal ceremony and legal documentation, a
couple is not married even if they have lived together for many years. However, after a
set period of time (usually one or two years), cohabiting couples are recognized as
common-law partners in some countries. In such instances, common-law partners can
have similar rights and obligations as they would in a legal marriage. Common-law
marriage can parallel legal marriage in terms of child support and custody, spousal
maintenance, income tax, unemployment insurance, medical and dental benefits, and
pensions. The degree to which cohabitors are treated like legally married couples usually
corresponds to the degree nonmarital unions are socially accepted. But even where
cohabitors do have rights, these are often unknown to cohabitors and more complicated
to exercise than they are for married persons. In many cases, the rights that cohabiting
couples possess have been established by court decisions rather than by state law, as
they are for married couples. Perhaps the most crucial legal distinction between these
unions is the absence of shared property rights in common-law relationships. Married
couples acquire shared property rights upon establishing their union, but cohabiting
couples must do so through the courts. In sum, no uniform and guaranteed set of rights
applies to cohabitation. This deficiency shows that in most countries, cohabitation is not
yet perceived as a legitimate variant to marriage from the perspective of the state.