The pros and cons of offering sacramental marriage to cohabiters living in an uncatechized culture.
The New York Times ran a piece last weekend entitled “Beyond Marriage.” It tells a story about high rates of cohabitation, high rates of non-marital births and marriage vanishing as a social norm. The same day, Pope Francis presided over the marriage of twenty couples, some of whom were cohabiting and at least one where the bride has a child out of wedlock. No one in the media seemed surprised or outraged by the facts reported in "Beyond Marriage," but Pope Francis’ actions stirred up a media frenzy. Is he relaxing the rules? Pushing the envelope in advance of October’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family?
We can set aside the question of whether a couple may be admitted to sacramental marriage if they are cohabiting. The answer is plainly yes, since no law impedes such a marriage (Code of Canon Law, cc. 1073–1094).
The interesting question is really whether they should be married if cohabiting. And this is a pastoral matter with fairly compelling reasons on each side.
Consider first the case against admitting cohabiting couples to marriage. This case rests on the idea that cohabiting couples, by definition, do not understand the nature of marriage. In the extreme, this argument might even be taken to augur against validity itself.
A Catholic philosopher and friend of mine put it thus: “I wonder if a canon law argument couldn’t be mounted, or more precisely an argument against validity, in this way:
You cannot be validly married if you do not recognize the commitment to be unqualified.
2. You cannot recognize the commitment to be unqualified, if you do not think sexual relations are under the law of God.
3. If you are cohabiting, you cannot view sexual relations as under the law of God.
4. It is difficult to believe that a single act (e.g., a marriage vow) changes the intention and beliefs of someone who has lived in a certain way for a long time.”
In other words, by their very history, cohabiters undermine the requirements needed to contract a valid marriage. Such marriages might even be ipso facto annullable.
So what is the possible case in favor of admitting cohabiting couples to marriage? The argument here rests on three ideas:
1. Marriage is a natural institution toward which people in every culture incline in some way (by forming of domestic unions, for example).
2. Because they incline to it naturally, preventing them from regularizing domestic arrangements would place unreasonable burdens on people.
3. The marriage of those who wish to make a proper marriage vow—however they arrived at such a wish—can be understood as a step on the path to full conversion, and not as the reward for conversion already attained.
Media coverage of the Vatican ceremony quoted one of the grooms as saying, “When we discovered that it was happening, that it wasn’t a dream—well, it transformed us.”
Convert and Catholic author Calah Alexander expressed a similar experience in a recent post here:
So, which pastoral course is best? Suppose that we are faced with a Christian culture in which people know—they feel and have understood—what marriage is, then the right course may indeed involve calling couples to reform, to pray and to study before considering marriage. And I believe there are some communities today, such as the one in which I was raised, where this description still rings true. As a young child I was blessed to know a great many families living God’s call to marriage and family life faithfully and fruitfully.
On the other hand, if we live in a world where couples seeking marriage have never understood what it is to be married—if they are nearly entirely uncatechized, unevangelized, and unconverted—then the right approach might be more like the approach taken by missionaries to new lands. It is very hard to imagine that they would have asked native peoples to refrain from conjugal living, to repent, and only then to be married properly.
One might object, of course, that these natives knew nothing of the Gospel. They had no catechism. They could not have sinned in living together without a proper marriage. And I would say this is the point exactly. So it comes down to a question of what kind of world we think we are living in.
I believe we can read the evidence described in the New York Times as making a pretty strong case that we are living in a world more like the one encountered by the missionaries. And this is discouraging when we consider the sacrifices made by those great men and women. But there is nothing in this life that guarantees that cultures always advance. In fact, if there is a norm at all, it is that cultures rise and fall. There is no blithe march forever forward.
And what about Pope Francis? Looking back now, I think that Evangelii Gaudium is an apologia par excellence for what he has been up to. Here he tells us quite plainly what kind of a world he thinks we are in: a world in which we must “attempt to put all things in a missionary key” (EG, 34).
Indeed it is hard to think that the Pope did not have the pastoral care of couples in mind when he wrote that
Pope Francis goes on to say that “these convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (EG, 47).
He concludes, “Let us go forth then, […] at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: ‘Give them something to eat’ (Mk 6:37)” (EG, 49).
Catherine Ruth Pakalukis an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ave Maria University, a Faculty Research Fellow at the Stein Center for Social Research, and a Senior Fellow in Economics at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. Her research is focused in the areas of demography, gender, family studies, and the economics of education and religion.She also works on the interpretation and history of Catholic social thought. Dr. Pakaluk earned her doctorate in economics at Harvard University (2010). She lives in Ave Maria, Florida with her husband Michael and seven children.