Recently, I was talking to one of my friends about men, relationships and marriage. She is currently single and is actively looking so she suddenly told me that she perhaps did not want to get married, because “marriage is just a paper” and it is such a long “commitment.” She may consider “living together” as an option instead in case that she finds the right person.
My friend is neither Catholic nor Christian but I still see the same thought process taking place with regard to marriage in believers and non-believers alike. The high rate of divorce in this country takes place in marriages inside and outside the Church alike. I’m not really sure how the number of Catholic couples who choose to live together before marriage compares to the number of non-Catholics or non-Christians. I can say, nonetheless, that I have sadly seen how Catholic acquaintances, friends, and the young people I worked with in my parish have gone down the route of living together and “skipping marriage for a while” or altogether.
In my own experience, the common response to justify cohabitation instead of getting married beforehand is the same one that my friend gave me: no “permanent” ties to the other person. In other words, living together is more convenient because there is no “permanent commitment” attaching a person to the other. So, what does that mean? That by living together either one of the parties can just walk out whenever they don’t like something or don’t feel like arguing? Is that the sole benefit of cohabitation? No “paper” tying down the two together? I’m asking, because I honestly do not understand it.
I cannot explain my friend what marriage means as a Sacrament and why it is necessary, because as I have said she is not a Christian. I do not pretend to talk about the many social factors that make a person choose cohabitation over marriage, because this post will soon prove itself too short. I do not pretend here either to discuss the differences about how the institution of marriage is seen by the State and the Catholic Church. I have chosen instead to approach marriage by simply talking about commitment in terms of why it is necessary in our lives as human beings.
Our actions and relationships are all either based or safeguarded through commitments or contracts that are either nonverbal or exist in some kind of written form. Commitment, therefore, means stability. Think of learning, for instance. Learning is a process that is achieved successfully through practice, constancy and perseverance. Thus, children, teenagers, young adults and even adults are expected to commit to go to school or respective classes every day and discouraged from missing a certain number of days. If the student misses too many classes, the teaching and learning process ceases to be effective and results in a waste of time and resources for the teachers and even other students.
Another practical example: work. Most individuals strive for a full-time job instead of having one or several part-time jobs with hourly wages that do not represent a stable income. Full-time jobs are of a more permanent character than part-time positions and they may offer many benefits while part-time jobs do not. However, regardless of whether we are talking about a full-time or part-time position, any kind of work we perform has its requirements and it is governed by a contract (a paper!) that we sign. When we sign our contract, we are committed to our employer to come to work every day, to show up on time and to perform our duties effectively. The worker who does not fulfill his or her commitment affects the whole working environment: the tasks are delayed or unfinished, other coworkers have to wait for information, and so forth.
I can think of numerous examples in our daily lives that are governed by a “contract” (paper) or, in other words, by a commitment from all the parties involved: credit purchases, loans, leases, insurance policies, and many more. In the previous examples, one can talk about “rights” and “duties.” There are very few instances in our lives in which we do not have any duties towards someone or something: our employer, teachers, friends, family, etc. We have to pay bills, go to work, go to school, attend family functions, etc. These are requirements for our tasks and relationships to be fruitful. But because we fulfill these duties, we have a right to enjoy our house or apartment, to spend our hard-earned salary as we deem appropriate, or to enjoy the company of friends and family. We all know how much it bothers us when friends or family members do not return our calls and we don’t hear from them for a while but only when they need something from us: “They are just not seriously committed to us,” we think.
Can you think of tasks we perform or relationships we have in which we do not have any duties whatsoever, but we just do as we choose? If we go to a store and pick something up and do not commit to pay for it at the cashier, then we would be stealing. Of course this specific example of commitment can be taken in a negative sense, because of its corrective motive: the seller wants an immediate payment instead of trusting that the buyer would eventually pay for the item (because most likely it will not happen!). This is definitely not how I think of marriage or relationships by any means, but it is important to underline that the so-called “benefit” that cohabitation brings and marriage does not is thought to be exactly that: the lack of commitment.
As I have shortly sketched, if “commitment” has proven itself as fruitful in every other human task or relationship, why would the lack thereof not be fruitful and beneficial in a relationship between a man and a woman? I realize that the problem of cohabitation is much more complex that I’m portraying it here, but think about it. What is the “essential bond” uniting two people who live together? A mere roof over their heads? It seems to me that the fundamental “bond” that unites two people who choose to “live together” (i.e. lack of commitment) is in itself a fallacy—a myth believed and lived by many. It simply does not make any sense: “I want you to live with me, but without getting married yet. Let’s just try this out and see if we want to get married or not.” This sounds like test-driving a car, but not buying it in the end. In other words, just as we treat a car we can say to that person: “Come and let me try you out, but keep in mind that I don’t have any contract saying that I need to take you in the end. I can just walk out of the lot without you and I can still shop around.”
Are these non-committal relationships successful? No. Let us look at the numbers (H/T: J. Lee Lagers, PhD Blog):
Are those who chose to move in together simply giving the relationship a trial run to ensure that the marriage that follows will be lasting? Statistics show that this doesn’t seem to work. More than half of the marriages that originate with cohabiting couples end within five years.
Are they thinking that a relationship free of obligations or commitment will be stronger? Again, the facts say no. Half of cohabiting relationships end within one year. However, rather than judging these people, I wish we in the married community would work harder to create authentic harmony and deeply rooted stability so that we could be a model to follow.
I think if we would surrender ourselves to one another, keeping our focus on God’s design and purpose for marriage, reasonable people would ask “How can I build a good marriage like that?” rather than “How can I find relational fulfillment in some way other than marriage?”
Emphasis mine. I think that Dr. Lager’s words are very wise. Cohabitation is not only a problem of young or single people, but very much a problem that should worry those who are married. We need to show as people of faith and as self-emptying people that marriage can work and that it can bring the most beautiful things out of these two people who united themselves in love and commitment for each other.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In