(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
Cohabitation: a Recipe for Marital Ruin
Shown to
Put Partners and Kids at Risk
OTTAWA, OCT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
Living together is an increasingly popular option in many countries. But it can
involve high social and emotional costs, says a new study, "Cohabitation and
Marriage: How Are They Related?" The Ottawa-based Vanier Institute of the Family
published the study Sept. 17.
The author, Anne-Marie Ambert, brings together the results of hundreds of
research papers that examined the social, emotional and financial effects of
cohabitation and marriage on men, women, children and society.
Cohabitation, the study observes, is often seen as entailing fewer
responsibilities at a legal or financial level, and less fidelity than marriage.
In recent years, however, de facto couples have sought and gained rights similar
to those of married couples, in areas such as property, health insurance,
pension plans, and child support.
Ambert notes that in Canada the marriage rate steeply declined in the 1990s,
particularly in the province of Quebec. The United States has also seen marriage
rates drop, though not as much as in Canada.
In both countries, the number of cohabiting couples has risen sharply. In 2000,
more than 4.1 million heterosexual couples in the United States and 1.3 million
in Canada cohabited. In 2001, 16% of all Canadian couples and 8.2% of all
American couples were cohabiting. In Quebec the level reached 30%, the same
proportion as in Sweden. Excluding Quebec, 11.7% of Canadian couples cohabit.
Divorce rates
The study cites data showing that cohabitation, in fact, leads to higher divorce
rates. Ambert cites the Canadian General Social Survey, which found, in the
20-to-30 age group, 63% of women whose first relationship had been
cohabitational had separated by 1995. This compared to 33% of women who had
married first.
Trying to find the causes behind this phenomenon, Ambert observes that some
individuals choose cohabitation because it does not require sexual fidelity.
Evidence indicates that the experience of a less committed cohabitation shapes
subsequent marital behavior, she notes.
"Some couples continue to live their marriage through the perspective of the
insecurity, lack of pooling of resources, low commitment level, and even lack of
fidelity of their prior cohabitation," the study comments. Moreover, some
studies have indicated that married couples who previously lived together are
less faithful in their sexual lives. And a lack of fidelity is known to be a
factor leading to higher rates of marriage breakdown.
Other studies show that couples who had cohabited had less positive
problem-solving behaviors and were, on average, less supportive of each other
than those who had not cohabited. As well, researchers have found that couples
who had cohabited before marriage had much higher rates of premarital violence
than those who had not lived together. This premarital violence then leads to
higher rates of marital violence, another factor related to divorce.
Ambert also notes that those who cohabit are generally more approving of divorce
as a solution to marital problems. In addition, couples who cohabit are less
religious than those who marry without prior cohabitation. On this point there
are several studies that indicate a correlation between religiosity and marital
happiness as well as stability.
She also opines that a propensity to cohabit soon after starting a romantic
relationship leads to a pattern of instability. People who go through a series
of de facto relationships are more likely contract quick marriages, which are
harder to remain faithful to.
Instability
Another risk factor with cohabitation is its unstable nature. More than half of
all these unions dissolve within five years, according to one study cited by
Ambert. In Quebec the level of dissolution of de facto relationships is lower
than in other provinces, but they still break up at a significantly higher rate
than marriages, she noted.
And the trend seems to be toward greater instability. In the 1970s, about 60% of
couples living together went on to marry their partner within three years. By
the early 1990s this figure dropped to about 35%.
In more recent years, a large proportion of young people began living together
soon after the onset of dating, with little intention of remaining together
permanently, and even less of getting married. Breaking up then becomes much
more difficult than if couples had simply continued to date each other.
But it's not just the couple involved who face problems. In 2001, 8.2% of
Canadian children ages 14 and younger lived in common-law households, excluding
Quebec where 29% lived in such households. In the United States an estimated 40%
of all children will live with their single mother (never-married or divorced)
and her boyfriend at some point before their 16th birthday.
Ambert commented that in spite of increasing social acceptance of cohabitation,
there is little direct information on the effects for children. A hint of the
disadvantages does emerge, however, from research comparing cohabitants to
daters and to married persons.
Revolving door
For children, cohabitation means a greater risk of living within an unstable
family structure, especially when their mother cohabits with a man who is not
their father. Some families even face a "revolving door" situation, with a
series of partners over the years. Ambert notes that one study found that
children living with their mother and cohabiting boyfriend had lower school
performance and more behavioral problems.
When it comes to family finances, Ambert observes that when a single mother
begins to cohabit, poverty can be reduced by as much as 30%. While this is of
financial benefit to children in the short term, the downside is that the male
partner in a de facto relationship normally earns less than a married man.
Moreover, any economic advantage from cohabitation is often short-term because
of the fragility of these unions.
Further problems resulting from the instability of cohabitation affect the
mother's capacity to give adequate attention to children, and contribute to
general neglect. The mother's partner is not as likely to compensate for this
deficiency because his attachment to the children is often low.
Physical abuse is also more likely and young children in cohabiting
relationships are more likely to be injured or killed by their mother's live-in
boyfriend than in biological families. Girls, for their part, are at higher risk
of being sexually abused.
"Commitment and stability are at the core of children's needs; yet, in a great
proportion of cohabitations, these two requirements are absent," observes Ambert.
Many people, Ambert notes toward the end of her study, maintain that marriage is
merely a matter of lifestyle choice and that it is equivalent to cohabitation.
"The research literature does not support this view at this point," she writes.
Instead, studies demonstrate that marriage has many benefits for both spouses
and children. A conclusion public lawmakers might want to take into
consideration.
ZE05100101
email this article
TOP
At 60, U.N. Is Showing Its Age
Proposed Reforms Fail Amid Renewed Criticisms
NEW YORK, OCT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
Birthdays are usually occasions for celebrating, but the United Nations isn't
rejoicing. The summit of world leaders held Sept. 14-16 to mark the
organization's 60th anniversary was originally planned to be the occasion for
approving widespread reforms. But after months of negotiating, talks ended in
deadlock, with agreement reached only on some minor issues.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in an article published in the May-June issue
of Foreign Affairs magazine, outlined his desires for a much-needed reform of
the world body. He noted that precisely at a time when there are serious
problems to overcome, there is "deep discord" between states that could even
call into question the principles governing the international order established
in 1945.
But, he added, dealing with current global challenges "requires broad, deep and
sustained global cooperation." Defending the role of the United Nations against
frequent criticisms, he argued: "States working together can achieve things that
are beyond what even the most powerful state can accomplish by itself."
Annan then outlined some priorities for U.N. reform. They ranged from dealing
with the threat posed by terrorism, to improving efforts in the control of
weapons of mass destruction, to building peace in war-torn countries. Human
rights and economic development are also important areas where renewed efforts
are needed.
On the question of internal reforms, Annan admitted: "If the U.N. is to be a
vehicle through which states can meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it
needs major reforms to strengthen its relevance, effectiveness and
accountability."
After the anniversary summit concluded without the reforms he sought, Annan, in
an article published Sept. 19 by the Wall Street Journal, admitted that the
document issued at the close of the summit had been described as
"disappointing."
He did, however, defend the agreement reached in areas such as promoting the
development goals set for 2015, and reforms in the areas of peacekeeping, plus
the strengthening of the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.
At the same time, the secretary-general noted there was still no agreement on
what changes to make in many high-priority U.N. areas.
Criticism of the failure to take advantage of the summit to overhaul the United
Nations not only came from those normally hostile to the organization, but also
from some who have held important positions in the past. One of these was Mary
Robinson, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997-2002.
In the Sept. 26 issue of the International Herald Tribune, she wrote: "There was
a vacuum here at the United Nations summit this month, an aching space demanding
to be filled." Not only was leadership lacking, she commented, but instead of a
summit that could have opened a new chapter for the United Nations, "we got a
summit of fudge: the self-important restatement of goals already agreed and some
shameful backsliding on old promises."
Pro-abortion
Many pro-life and Catholic groups have also been dissatisfied for a long time
with the United Nations, due to its unceasing enthusiasm for promoting abortion,
contraception and radical feminism. The Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute, for instance, in its March 5, 2004, Friday Fax, commented on the
support given by Kofi Annan for abortion.
Months earlier, Annan had received an award from the pro-abortion International
Women's Health Coalition. During the ceremony the U.N. secretary-general
expressed lavish praise for the IWHC's work and said the world would be a better
place if there were more groups of this nature.
The Friday Fax noted that among the achievements of the IWHC is teaching
abortion supporters how to skirt legal restrictions. Pressuring for the
reinterpretation of U.N. documents to include the "right to abortion," is
another priority of the group.
On the matter of using U.N. agreements, a more recent example comes from
Ireland. According to the Irish Independent newspaper of March 8, the Irish
Human Rights Commission recommended that in order to respect the nation's
commitments to international agreements the government should introduce
legislation clarifying when abortions are allowed.
Commenting on the story in a separate article, journalist David Quinn noted that
the recommendations came about because Ireland in July had to report on the
implementation of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women. This process ran the danger of opening long-running and bitter
wounds over the abortion issue, he warned.
In the past the Vatican has frequently criticized U.N. policies in the area of
abortion and family planning. In his speech to the summit Sept. 16, Cardinal
Angelo Sodano, secretary of state of the Holy See, renewed this criticism.
Referring to the targets set for 2015, known as the Millennium Development
Goals, he noted they contained "an ambiguous, reductive or even ideological
vision of health."
In particular the cardinal noted the unfortunate nature of the term
"reproductive health," used in the U.N. documents. "Could there be a desire to
return to the language of a ‘right to abortion'?" he asked. Instead of
"reproductive health" the Vatican secretary of state suggested using the phrase
"health of women and children."
Changes needed
Yet despite its reservations on this issue, the Vatican has not joined forces
with those who completely reject the United Nations. Cardinal Sodano did note
that "time has taken its toll" on the United Nations and that a renewal is
needed. He also insisted that the organization should not be remade into a sort
of "super-government."
At the same time, he continued, the United Nations needs the juridical
instruments necessary to promote disarmament, fight against terrorism and to
achieve cooperation in resolving conflicts.
And in relation to promoting development in Third World nations, "it remains an
obligation in justice in the service of human dignity to attain and even to
surpass the Millennium Development Goals, thereby establishing an essential
pre-condition for peace and collective security," Cardinal Sodano affirmed.
In a speech Sept. 23 during the general debate at the opening of the 60th
session of the General Assembly, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the head of the
Holy See delegation to the United Nations, continued the theme of reforms.
He repeated the reservations expressed in the past concerning the terminology of
"reproductive health," and argued that the Holy See does not consider abortion
as an appropriate part of the concept of health.
On the positive side, the archbishop stated that "the United Nations becomes the
projection of the hope for peace and well being in the world." Fulfilling this
role, he continued, requires leadership, courage and vision.
Archbishop Migliore welcomed the efforts to introduce reforms in the area of
human rights, noting that with globalization, "a greater sense of universal
human duties would benefit the cause of peace, because awareness of our mutual
responsibility acknowledges duties as essential to a social order which does not
depend upon the will or power of any individual or group."
And in another speech made the previous day, on the issue of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the head of the Holy See's delegation expressed his
support for U.N. efforts in controlling nuclear weapons and in defending
international humanitarian law. Imperfect as it is, the United Nations still
fulfills a necessary role in many areas.
ZE05100102
email this article
TOP
Church's Role in Policy Debates
Hits a Nerve
Opponents Increasingly Critical of Its Influence
ROME, OCT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
The Church is prepared to undertake whatever war is necessary to defend its
position, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, president of the Italian bishops' conference,
reportedly told a high-ranking government official, Gianni Letta, in a recent
telephone call.
The bellicose words came out in Wednesday's edition of one of Italy's major
dailies, the Milan-based Corriere della Sera. But, as the episcopal conference
pointed out in a note issued later that morning, the phone call referred to
never took place. The story was "completely false," the fruit of a "pure
invention," according to the Italian bishops' press office.
The incident took place as some traditionally anti-Catholic sectors have become
increasingly annoyed at the Church's success in recent public-policy debates. In
mid-June the Church backed a campaign to dissuade voting in a referendum that
sought to ease restrictions on in vitro fertilization.
Despite wide media support for the referendum -- including the almost-daily
articles published by the Corriere della Sera -- Italian voters overwhelmingly
heeded the plea not to vote. The proposals failed because less than half the
electorate went to the polls.
The latest conflict came after Cardinal Ruini declared the Church's opposition
to proposals for the legal recognition for cohabitating couples. At a bishops'
conference session Sept. 19, the cardinal argued that, given the extremely low
birthrate in Italy, the government would do better to give greater support to
families, instead of heeding calls to give juridical status to de facto couples.
Italian political groups have splintered over whether, and how, to deal with the
petitions by some party leaders to mimic other European countries and grant
legal status to relationships outside the bounds of traditional marriage. The
Church's intervention in the debate has led to vociferous criticisms that it is
meddling in the political sphere.
Aggressive campaigns
Undaunted, the secretary of the episcopal conference, Bishop Giuseppe Betori, in
an interview broadcast Wednesday by Vatican Radio, declared that the Church
would continue to speak out in spite of the "aggressive and intimidatory
campaign" against it.
For his part, Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan, in an interview published
last Sunday in the Catholic newspaper Avvenire, recommended that the
intellectual class and the mass media pay more attention to the views of the
general public, which, he said, are often closer to the reality of things.
The debate has led some to call for the state to end its cooperation in passing
on to the Church a small percentage of each citizen's taxes, used mainly to
defray the costs of Church-run social welfare programs.
A similar issue has arisen in Spain too. During the last year the Church came
into conflict with the government over the latter's legalization of same-sex
unions, and some politicians and organizations have called for an end to the
current agreement on financing.
The government has just agreed to renew the payments for another year, the
Spanish newspaper El País reported Thursday. The matter is unlikely to go away,
however, and the Church relations with the government are set for further
conflict, with debates already under way over the organization of the education
system and religion classes in schools.
In England, too, Church involvement in the public arena was debated in a
television program broadcast Wednesday night by BBC2. The show, titled "God and
the Politicians," caused problems even before its transmission. On Tuesday the
Public Affairs Office of the Diocese of Westminster sent out a note to the media
containing the full text of the remarks made in the program by the archbishop,
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.
The cardinal, explained the press office, had been "selectively quoted" in some
media reports. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor spoke about the proposed establishment
of Muslim schools and faith schools in general. Christian schools, he commented,
"are not only beneficial for the Christians of this country but also enhance the
country as a whole."
He also noted that a number of Jewish and Muslim families are happy to send
their children to Catholic schools. But he expressed reservations over the idea
that a large number of Catholics could go to Muslim schools. He also noted that
the government had a legitimate concern over the values taught in faith schools,
and Muslim institutions in particular.
A further intervention in Church-state debates came from the archbishop of
Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. According to a report Tuesday in the Irish Independent
newspaper, the archbishop said that Christians must not be excluded from helping
to shape the laws and values of Europe.
Speaking at a conference on the future of the European Union, held at All
Hallows College, in Dublin, Archbishop Martin said that Christians "have a
responsibility to work to build a body of legislation which is consonant with
the moral law and where possible to correct morally defective laws."
Reporting on religion
The debate over religion and politics is also a frequent topic in the United
States. Earlier this year the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy
Center published in book form a series of forums it has held on the subject.
Edited by Michael Cromartie, "Religion and Politics in America: A Conversation"
(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers) is based on six encounters held for
journalists to help them raise the level of reporting on religious matters.
In his introduction, Cromartie contended that while the mainstream press notably
increased its coverage of religion during the 1990s, "there was very little
understanding of theology or religious belief in religious news."
Catholic author George Weigel addressed one of the meetings. Weigel noted that
the 61 million Catholics in the United States come from a wide range of
backgrounds and hold differing political views. "Yet for almost 40 years, the
Catholic story has been reported in starkly black-and-white terms," he
commented.
Weigel explained that since the times of the Second Vatican Council, reports
have overwhelmingly tended to adopt a familiar liberal/conservative, good
guy/bad guy, matrix for analyzing anything Catholic. He also noted that this
outlook led the media to concentrate on topics that lent themselves to preset
stereotypes, such as the debate over women's role in the Church.
Media coverage that did not set out from pre-conceived ideas would be more open
to reporting on issues that are often more important and relevant, Weigel
contended. As examples he pointed to the impact of the Catechism; conversions to
Catholicism by intellectuals; the renewal of devotional life; increased efforts
in the area of ecumenism; and the flourishing of ecclesial movements.
Weigel also argued that in his contribution to Catholic social doctrine, Pope
John Paul II has made "what is arguably the most comprehensive proposal for the
free, prosperous and virtuous society on offer in the world today." Useful
advice for the media, within and outside the United States.
ZE05100103