Cohabitate, why not?
As we have discussed previously, the world's idea of freedom can best be captured by the unanswered, dismissive question, "Why not?"[1] Also, as previously discussed, this reduction of religion to the moral (Kantianism), or of those who believe that which pertains to any religion as blind followers, each in their turn reduces any argument against a behavior with at least probable negative outcomes to mere attempts at control, an obsessive-compulsive perfectionism that would negate subjectivity (rigid psychological tendency), or to a spirituality divergent from corporal legitimacy (Gnosticism). Because our culture clings so foundationally to the demoralization of sex, its role, and its ideal context, cohabitation, like abortion, the definition of marriage, and the nature of love, has become a controversial issue that many come to discuss only once "loaded for bear" and often without listening. Moreover, although the "pro-cohabitation choice" side of this issue would strongly attempt to reframe any argument in the ways previously mentioned, it is worth noting that logic does not concern feelings first, as this would not be rational. Still, it cannot exclude the state of humanity either. This is to say that I think both sides should appreciate the primacy of avoiding the increase of negative dynamics in humanity, which often originate through the following of emotion or convenience without sufficient use of reason or long-term consideration. Thus, cohabitation is incompatible with Catholic courtship because it appropriates the goods and intimacies proper to marriage before its free, public, and sacramental establishment, separating marital acts from the covenant they signify (ontologically and psychologically), obscuring the meaning of commitment, sacrifice, and sacramental grace, while impairing authentic discernment, hindering the formation of virtue, and increasing the likelihood of (if not outright producing) relational and spiritual harm.
First, we shall consider that the purpose of courtship is discernment. "As youth enter young adulthood, they begin a period of greater personal responsibility which includes the discernment of vocation."[6] Just as every human practice has a proper purpose, courtship, insofar as it always precedes marriage, is ordered toward discerning whether a particular man and woman should enter marriage (a vocation) together. (Self-evidentially,) Discernment requires gauging the goodness of, understanding the nature of the thing discerned in both any and this particular context, and the possibility of moral execution of the thing discerned. Discerning marriage specifically requires the absence of coercion, the presence of freedom, and wholehearted consent, which in turn require clarity and the ability to choose (against) marriage to the member of the opposite sex.[8] The necessary freedom for discernment is undermined by fear of what happens when a relationship may not be headed toward marriage or, in place of the pursuit of marriage, may need to be ended for lack of relational health or prudential continuation.* Discerning marriage specifically requires actual openness to fidelity, lifelong commitment, and openness to children and their being raised "according to the law of Christ and his Church."[8] Cohabitation creates practical and emotional constraints, and outcomes do not support that it is valuable for discernment [5]. Therefore, courtship should preserve freedom, clarity for discernment, and a period of impartial discernment; arrangements that compromise such things undermine discernment.
Second, we must discuss the nature of the thing to be discerned. Marriage is a total covenant whose privileges belong to the covenant. Marriage is a lifelong covenant of mutual self-gift.[9] This implies exclusivity, particular yet comprehensive vows, a spirit of unbounded generosity, unconditionality on the part of the parties, and a particular methodology by which it is engendered and sustained. The goods of marriage express and presuppose that covenant. Empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and relationship studies suggests that sexual intimacy is most conducive to long-term flourishing when integrated within committed, enduring relationships, as sex appears to foster pair-bonding through neurobiological mechanisms, deepen relational attachment through shared meaning and spiritual significance, and is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and stability when preceded by commitment rather than treated as a casual activity.[11] This means that any goods of living together and being made one are improper, incomplete, and profaned (in terms of sacramentality) outside of the proper context, thus maligning the goods (both in themselves and in our understanding of them) and producing consequences and probabilistic effects.[12] Engaging in the acts that engender it suggests that the nature of the covenant is not respected, which begs questions of how it will be abided by or reverenced when it is present. In short, how can one acquiesce to something a goal requires if one is disrespecting that goal and seeking only to reap its benefits without paying its cost before it truly begins? Therefore, marital privileges properly belong within marriage because marriage contextualizes the acts properly and bestows upon them the meaning that they physiologically imply, joining them to a life of peace, grace, and certainty in a way only the sacrament can bestow.
Third, we shall consider the contradiction of justice that cohabitation signifies. Cohabitation (fraudulently or thievishly) appropriates goods proper to marriage while withholding the covenant that gives those goods their meaning. Marriage establishes a covenant. Just as God established covenants with us time and again, a covenant involves assurances of generosity and selflessness that not just any relationship offers. Just as promises of salvation are brought about by partaking in a covenant with God, marital goods properly flow from the marital covenant. Cohabitation seeks many marital goods apart from the covenant, including the good of cuddling through the night, waking together, or intercourse (fornication) itself (if not only a consistent or constant occasion for it, which we pray about avoiding in the Act of Contrition). The content of a firm purpose of amendment necessary to be absolved of sin includes, at minimum, the avoidance of temptation where possible, and failure to amend these situations strains the validity of absolution for this sin, compromising a state of grace even in the context of confession. Virtue (and most certainly a repentant Christian life) avoids foreseeable occasions of moral failure and is honest with the finitude and compromised condition of human love.[2][10] Cohabitation, by its nature, creates strong occasions for sexual sin, to the point that canon law assumes intercourse in the context, and rightfully so, for determining the validity of a marriage.[4] Moreover, given our brokenness (which is further strained in this context), we are often indisposed to good things and disposed to bad things. First, how much more difficult is it for the difference between temptation and the act of sin not to become all but immediate? Second, how much more should one be tempted if this is someone we trust deeply, have great affection for, possess a natural sexual interest in, and may wish to have children with anyway? [7] Overall, charity/love seeks the true good of the beloved. Love is measured by self-gift and sacrifice. Cohabitation is often motivated by convenience. Consequently, it habituates couples to a complacent absence of sacrifice or inconvenience. Freedom is the ability to choose the good.[1] Therefore, cohabitation separates goods from the reality that justifies them, namely the self-sacrificial covenant, undermining virtue (being contrary to justice, chastity, prudence, and charity) and authentic freedom.[10]
Fourth, and consequently (from the prior points), it harms couples, children, and society. As discussed above, the effects, regardless of intention or circumstance, include weaker discernment, less intentional commitment, relationship inertia (or stagnation), increased temptation, impaired communication, and reduced trust in all such matters. Children may arise from such situations. Empirical research in sociology, developmental psychology, economics, and family studies consistently finds that children, on average, experience the most favorable outcomes when raised in stable, low-conflict homes headed by their married biological parents, as such family structures are associated with greater relational stability, lower poverty rates, reduced exposure to abuse and family disruption, stronger educational and emotional outcomes, and increased access to parental resources, although some scholars note that part of this advantage reflects parental characteristics and selection effects rather than marital status alone.[14] No less, marriage is formally ordered toward stable family life and invites sure discernment. Cohabitation is at best less stable than marriage. Therefore, cohabitation creates greater risks for children, at best. Actions teach children and neighbors alike. Self-evidently, cohabitation communicates, at least, that: 1) chastity is unrealistic, 2) marriage is unnecessary, and 3) commitment is optional in a relationship, or even as Jordan Petersen crassly quips concerning the man and woman, "you are the best I can manage at the moment".[2]
In conclusion, Christians should reject cohabitation (unless there are circumstances that a priest agrees constitute an exception, notably rare and probably dire) and instead order courtship toward virtuous preparation for sacramental marriage. The role of the sacrament in the relationship, commitment during marriage, detachment before marriage, and the relevant practices utilized by the Catholic Church and derived from Christ's teaching are the surest ways to protect the common good of every party, even when something goes wrong. To understate the strength of this conclusion, it would be advisable not to cohabitate or cross related boundaries in almost every instance of the question, "Why not?" This is the better part of the answer. Still more, beyond avoiding a negative trend, the pursuit of a holistic relationship rather than mere relations is, as William May would say, “the union of one man and one woman, the foundation of family life, and a person-affirming, love-enabling, life-giving, sanctifying reality.”[13] In like fashion, those who consider the avoidance of fornication and cohabitation a boundary, and who are honored or honor their beloved by recognizing the above, often observe a healthy and helpful challenge to grow the relationship through navigating obstacles, making good and valid sacrifices, cherishing the interior well-being of the other, and establishing healthy dynamics for a lifelong relationship as consoling, loving, and necessary for deeper, more thorough discernment. Better discernment means greater trust is available both for God and between man and woman, which makes for a marriage that brings about health, happiness, and holiness. Even in cases where sacramentality may not be a consideration (for non-Christians), discernment and commitment remain essential aspects of a "marriage" if one wishes to prevent negative trends affecting couples, children, and society, far from being a mere "paper".[3][9]**
FN (Click to find):
1. Carter Carruthers, "Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads", Vivat Agnus Dei, July 27, 2025.
3. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation on the Love in the Family Amoris laetitia (19 March 2016), §293.
4. cf. Code of Canon Law, at The Holy See, www.vatican.va, 1061§2.
5. Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades, University of Denver x Institute for Family Studies.
6. Laity, Life, and Youth Committee, Bishop's Conference Publication on the Phases of Sacramental Preparation Walking towards marriage (31 March 2021). Also see: https://bridgeportpriest.org/articles/dating-and-discernment
7. Andrew Thruinger, Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls in Ministry to Youth.
8. Order of Matrimony, The Questions before the Consent.
11. 1) Ryan B. Allen and Dean M. Busby, “Sexual Sanctification and Sexual Well-Being in Committed Relationships,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2026); Anna Iovine, “How Finding Deep Spiritual Meaning in the Bedroom Changes Relationship Dynamics,” PsyPost, 2026; 2) Abigail Marsh, “The Neuroscience of Love: What’s Going on in the Lovestruck Brain?” Georgetown University; 3) Laura M. Padilla-Walker et al., “A Longitudinal Study of the Timing of First Sex in Romantic Relationships and Subsequent Relationship Quality,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; 4) Karen J Holland et al. “Spiritual Intimacy, Marital Intimacy, and Physical/Psychological Well-Being: Spiritual Meaning as a Mediator.” Psychology of religion and spirituality vol. 8,3 (2016): 218-227.
14. 1) W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. (New York: Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011); “Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations: Effects on Children,” American College of Pediatricians; 2) Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? (Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2003), CLASP Report PDF; 3) “For Kids, Parental Cohabitation and Marriage Are Not Interchangeable,” Institute for Family Studies; 4) “New Research Confirms Having Married Parents Helps Kids Get Ahead,” Institute for Family Studies; “Couples and Kids,” University of Notre Dame Shaw Center for Children and Families; 5) Kristin A. Moore et al., Marital Quality and Outcomes for Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Family Process Literature (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009), HHS Report; 6) Claire Crawford, Wendy Sigle-Rushton, and Lindsey Macmillan, “Child Development and Marital Status,” Nuffield Foundation Research Summary.
*Note: Although this is meant to be more academic than experiential, it is well worth noting that I personally have encountered many who, even after making it work for a time after marriage, had their lives ruined by relationships of cohabitation amounting to inadequate discernment, and even some who later asked for money. Financially, if your significant other is the only one whose name is on the lease or deed and they kick you out, one may lose all physical assets on the premises.
**of course, it may be argued that there exists an insufficient commitment as long as marriage is not considered indissoluble and existentially important, which may be available only in the Catholic Church and denominations with similar teachings
