"As soon as we get the green light for nuptial cohabitation...

... we'll start working to promote an acceptance of non-recipricated acquisition, oppositional truth-utterances, extra-marital conjugal affirmation, and extraordinary property neediness."

That is: stealing, lying, adultery, and coveting.

This inspired by an article by "two respected family ministry researchers" who argue that nuptial cohabitation—also known, in less politically-correct times, as shacking up, living in sin, fornication—is a good and healthy way for people to ease their way into marriage. The article, titled "A Betrothal Proposal," was published in the U.S. Catholic magazine and was authored by Michael J. Lawler and Gail S. Risch, who are researchers at the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University, Nebraska, where they also teach theology. Creighton University is, according to its website, "a Catholic and Jesuit comprehensive university" that "is dedicated to the pursuit of truth in all its forms and is guided by the living tradition of the Catholic Church."  The Center's mission page states: "The Center for Marriage and Family stands firmly in this Catholic and Jesuit tradition." Lawler and Risch have either missed the part about being guided by Church teaching and standing firmly in it, or else believe they know better than the Church; in fact, their article makes it clear which it is (quick, take a guess!).

Lawler and Risch toss around some statistics and social research, but the bottom line is quite simple: they believe the Catholic Church should allow fornication ("Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman" [CCC 2353]) because, well, everyone else is doing it:

The sharp increase in premarital cohabitation is one of the most fundamental social changes in Western countries today. Between 1960 and 2004, the number of unmarried couples living together in the United States increased tenfold from less than 500,000 to more than 5 million. Cohabitation has become, even for Catholics, more and more a conventional and socially endorsed reality.

Recent focus groups of young Catholic adults on “problematic aspects of church teaching” found that they disagreed with church teaching on premarital sex and cohabitation and do not see a fundamental difference in a loving relationship before and after a wedding. Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace. ...

Church teaching is sometimes slow to respond to social change and to sift out its beneficial aspects and thus sometimes can appear detached from real experience. That is what young adults tell us and what they also told various focus groups.

We invite the Catholic Church to be a leader, rather than an adversary, in acknowledging and nurturing nuptial cohabiting relationships as just and loving relationships and pathways to grace. We also invite Catholics to be ready to assist cohabiting nuptial couples to discover the presence of God in their lives and to live into that grace throughout their present cohabiting and future married lives.

This, of course, is nonsense, as both Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss, Archbishop of Omaha, and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver have pointed out in public responses to the article. Archbishop Curtiss stated, in a June 5th letter:

The teaching of the Catholic Church about fornication is clear and unambiguous: it is always objectively a serious sin (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1755, #1852, #2353). Couples who live together without marriage do in fact live in sin objectively.

Because the position of the authors is contrary to Church teaching about the intrinsic evil of fornication, I have disassociated the Omaha Archdiocese from the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University.

Neither Lawler nor Risch are reliable teachers of Catholic moral theology, and certainly are not spokespeople for the Church regarding human sexuality and sacramental marriage.

The Curt Jester and Rich Leonardi have posted about the story, as have some other Catholic bloggers. But there is more to the story. The CatholicCitizens.org site has a November 8, 2005 article showing that this sly attack on Catholic moral teaching is hardly new to Lawler:

A Catholic theologian who opposes Church teaching on divorce and supports creating a betrothal ceremony for cohabitating couples just led a colloquium to assist US bishops with writing a pastoral letter on marriage.

The colloquium, which ended yesterday (10/25/05), was sponsored by the US Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family and hosted by the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University in Omaha. It featured theologians and social scientist and had as its theme, "Promoting and Sustaining Marriage as a Community of Life and Love." According to a press release, the colloquium was a "major step" toward developing "a pastoral letter on marriage" and was "intended for the current and incoming members and advisors of the Marriage and Family Committee."

The director of Creighton's Center on Marriage and Family, Michael J. Lawler, served as the colloquium's chief facilitator. Lawler is well known for his heterodox views on divorce and cohabitation. A review of Lawler's book, "Marriage and the Catholic Church: Disputed Questions," in the left-of-center Catholic magazine "America", explains Lawler's take on divorce: "The governing agenda is to show how divorce and remarriage can be justified historically, canonically and theologically. Lawler argues that the sacramental character of marriage depends on personal faith. Therefore (contrary to canon law and current official teaching), sacramentality cannot attend the union of two persons, even two baptized persons, who do not intend, or who cease to experience, a mutual love that in faith makes God and Christ present." According to the review, Lawler also "proposes a formal betrothal ceremony to recognize and legitimize [cohabitation] and to provide an opportunity for marriage preparation."

Speaking of former ceremonies, how about one by the USCCB suspending Lawler's ability to teach theology at a Catholic university? I'll happily supply the balloons and cake and a copy of this book for everyone who attends.

In the meantime, let's return to my opening remark, which was fictional in nature but hardly unbelievable. There are, let's propose, people who sometimes practice non-recipricated acquisition but have the intention of someday paying for what they've stol--er, acquired. There are people who speak oppositional truth-utterances, yet have the best intention of someday, at the right time, telling the truth. There are those who seek out extra-marital conjugal affirmation, but commit such acts of spousal-challenged intimacy with the laudable goal of enriching and "spicing up" their marriages. There are some who fall into extraordinary property neediness, but with the intent of merely obtaining what they really need, not what they really want. After all, each of these actions and attitudes are more and more becoming conventional and socially endorsed realities. And I've not even broached same-gendered conjugal-emulating acts, sometimes crassly called homosexuality (or, in specific instances, sodomy). Why stop with shacking up? Let's take this openminded approach to each and every tenet of Catholic moral teaching!

Here, then, would be the goal: to affirm that Catholics can be Catholic without living in a way that is distinctively Catholic. By doing so, it becomes both easier to be Catholic and harder to tell who is Catholic, which breaks down barriers between Catholics and non-Catholics, thus helping both groups feel better about how they live while not making them change how they live. We could enlist the mentoring and life-coaching skills of folks such as John Kerry, Rudy Guiliani, Nancy Pelosi, Fr. Richard McBrien, and others, whose public struggles to be Catholic without being Catholic have been well-documented in recent years (or, in the case of Fr. McBrien, for many decades).

Plenty more could be said, but I'll wrap up with a final word from Archbishop Chaput, drawn from his June 20th column about the U.S. Catholic article:

... I believe in the intelligence and good will of the authors. I also believe that their argument is bafflingly naïve. If the Church, in her reflection on the Gospel, has always taught that sex outside marriage is morally wrong, then for the Church to now bless “nuptial cohabiters” amounts to colluding in sin. Ritualizing a sinful behavior, or calling it a nicer name, does not change its substance. The very last thing we need in a society already awash in confused sexuality is a strategy for accommodating it.

The greatest irony of the U.S. Catholic article comes in a comment by the authors that many young adults “cite confusion about Church teaching because Church leaders send mixed messages about sex, contraception, and divorce/annulment.” I very much agree. And one of the sources of that confusion might be Catholic publications, theologians and researchers who help feed it.

We need more support for marriage in society and the Church, not alternative arrangements. Cohabiting couples deserve the understanding and patience of the Catholic community, but above all they need to hear the Christian truth, persuasively offered, about the nature of marriage, the meaning of their sexuality and the importance of the family. We waste words and time when we focus on anything else.

Comments

[Deacon Harold]

Newsflash: Christ did not become incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, suffer crucifixion, death and burial, and then rise gloriously from the dead so that His teachings could be changed by the culture. Christ came to change the culture from the inside out.

Our Lord tells us, "Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:27). As disciples of Christ, we are called to pick up our cross and follow Christ, not the culture. When we follow Christ in response to our baptismal call to holiness, we participate in Christ's Paschal Mystery in an intimate and personal way. Holiness is a calling by God to share in His very life by striving for spiritual perfection in charity. The dynamic of holiness molds, shapes and forms us into who we truly are: the Church, the Body of Christ.

Christ calls each member of His Body to loving and life-giving union with Him, which He establishes through a covenant. In covenant relationship, one makes a complete and total gift of oneself to another. It is an intimate exchange of persons where you break yourself open and pour yourself out in life-giving love, and where this outpouring of self is freely and lovingly reciprocated.

Marriage is a covenant, cohabitation is not. The authors' statements that "cohabitation has become, even for Catholics, more and more a conventional and socially endorsed reality", and that their experience with "young adults leads [them] to doubt the claim that [young adults] are living in sin" and "appear(s) closer to the truth that they are growing into grace", not only undermines and reduces the meaning of covenant relationship in Christ but also attempts to redefine "covenant" to fit the ephemeral and relativistic idealism of the culture.

Here are a few facts that may help clarify things for the folks at Jesuit-run Creighton University:

1. Covenant relationship is rooted in loving and life-giving union, which God never intended to be separated. The deliberate separation of love and life (as is the case with cohabitation) obfuscates the work of the Spirit and leads to a culture of death.

2. They should read this objective sociological study on cohabitation (.PDF):

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf

3. Christ is the head of the Church and he passed on that authority to Peter, the apostles and their successors (cf. Isaiah 22: 21-24; Matthew 16:18, 18:18; John 20:20-23). Here is what the bishops say on cohabitation:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/LVNGTGTH.HTM

One last thing. The term "cohabiting nuptial couple" is at the very least a mockery and insult to covenant relationship and its valid expression in sacramental marriage. The term clearly indicates internal assent and allegiance to the "magisterium" of the culture and not an authentic manifestation of the sensus fidei. If this is their idea of standing "firmly in this Catholic and Jesuit tradition" I'll take my chances in quicksand.

[cranky]

Look long enough and you can find a "good" Catholic supporting nearly anything. I always have trouble making behaviors acceptable when I can't find support ultimately in Scripture or Catechism.

Re:USCCB. I have yet to discern their positive contribution to my life. I'm probably missing something. How could we de-fund them?

[Ed Peters]

Good post, Carl. And great link to Abp. Chaput. He's terrific. Thx.

[Fr. Greg]

Funny. I have read of several studies that indicate that couples who live together before marriage are less happy in their marriage and more likely to divorce than couples who did not. I am not aware of any data which demonstrates the opposite.

[Jackson]

Diabolical.

[jolene]

Stealing? In college, we preferred the term "to borrow with extreme prejudice."

[Carl Olson]

In college, we preferred the term "to borrow with extreme prejudice."

LOL. Or, how about: "Prejudiced toward extreme borrowing"?

[Sandra Miesel]

Ah, with my long memory I recall the Quakers issuing a document with similar views in the '60s. It concluded that fornication was OK because "if there is the seed of committment, God is not shut out." (Wish I recalled useful information half as well.)