Posted on 06/27/2011 5:21:14 PM PDT by NYer
It is June — that time of year when many of us will be receiving wedding invitations. One thing that may have changed from years past is the likelihood that the address on that invitation is for a country club, beach or community center rather than a Catholic parish.
The number of marriages celebrated in the Church has fallen from 415,487 in 1972 to 168,400 in 2010 — a decrease of nearly 60 percent — while the U.S. Catholic population has increased by almost 17 million. To put this another way, this is a shift from 8.6 marriages per 1,000 U.S. Catholics in 1972 to 2.6 marriages per 1,000 Catholics in 2010.
The “crude marriage” rate (marriages per 1,000 of a population) for Catholics marrying in the Church is significantly different than the overall crude marriage rate of the United States. In 2009, the most recent data available, the crude marriage rate in the U.S. overall was 6.8 marriages per 1,000 people.
It’s not that Catholics are less likely to marry than non-Catholics. In 2010, 53 percent of Catholics surveyed in the General Social Survey (GSS) indicated that they were currently married. By comparison, 51 percent of non-Catholics surveyed were married (including 55 percent of Protestants and 43 percent of those without a religious affiliation). Instead, many Catholics are choosing to marry outside of the Church.
We can see this trend in polling data as well. In a 2007 survey conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, 46 percent of unmarried Catholics who indicated some likelihood of marrying in the future said it is “somewhat” or “very” important to them to marry in the Church.
There are some other trends that are leading to the declining numbers of marriages in the Church.
A smaller percentage of Catholics are choosing to marry at all. The percentage of Catholics in the GSS indicating that they are married dropped from 79 percent in 1972 to 53 percent in 2010. Among Catholics ages 18 to 40, this percentage dropped from 69 percent to 38 percent during this period.
Some of this can be explained by Catholics waiting longer to marry, but the shift here has been slight. In 1972, the average age at first marriage reported in the GSS for Catholics ages 18 to 40 was 20.9. In 2006 (the last time this question was asked), it was 23.9.
Thus, the decline in Church marriages is more about not marrying at all than marrying older. CARA’s 2007 survey on marriage provides some additional context. In this study, Catholics who had never married were asked, “How likely do you think it is that you will get married at some point in your life?” Twenty-four percent of these never-married Catholics responded, “not at all likely.”
Divorce is another factor in the growing gap between the overall crude marriage rate in the U.S. and in the Church. The percentage of adult Catholics who are divorced or separated, divorced and remarried or widowed increased from 8 percent in 1972 to 22 percent in 2010. Some who divorce get remarried in civil ceremonies without seeking an annulment. These marriages are included in the total number of marriages in the U.S. but couldn’t be celebrated in the Church.
Another factor is the increasing number of marriages among Catholics to spouses of another faith.
According to the 1991 GSS, 78 percent of married Catholics ages 40 and younger had a Catholic spouse. This dropped to 57 percent in 2008, with an increasing number of Catholics reporting a Protestant spouse (28 percent) or one with no religious affiliation (15 percent).
Some Catholics celebrate their interfaith marriage in the Church. The percentage of marriages celebrated in the Church between a Catholic and a non-Catholic has remained quite stable in recent decades. In 2009, 26 percent of marriages in the Church were between a Catholic and a non-Catholic.
The likelihood that a Catholic will marry a non-Catholic is related to how numerous other Catholics are in his or her community. In 2009, in dioceses in which Catholics were about 10 percent of the total population, the average percentage of marriages in the Church between a Catholic and non-Catholic was 41 percent. In dioceses in which 40 percent or more of the population was Catholic, only about 16 percent of marriages in the Church were interfaith.
Not all dioceses have experienced the same marriage-rate decline. Four reported an increase in their crude Catholic marriage rates in the last decade: Peoria, Ill. (4.2 marriages in the Church per 1,000 Catholics in 2000 compared with 5.2 in 2010), Monterey, Calif. (3.4 to 4.3), Amarillo, Texas (5.1 to 5.2), and Beaumont, Texas (3.7 to 3.8). However, in each of these dioceses the total number of marriages celebrated in the Church declined. The resulting increases in marriage rates are due to fewer numbers of Catholics living in these dioceses.
In six dioceses, the total number of marriages celebrated increased, but the marriage rate fell due to more rapidly growing Catholic populations. These include: Corpus Christi, Texas (222 more marriages in 2010 than in 2000), Charlotte, N.C. (+112), Brownsville, Texas (+30), Knoxville, Tenn. (+18), Raleigh, N.C. (+17), Lincoln, Neb. (+1).
In the 10 dioceses with the highest rates for Catholic marriage in 2010, mostly concentrated in middle America, the rates are similar to the total crude marriage rate in the U.S. (6.8 in 2009). In the dioceses with the lowest crude rates, many are likely choosing to marry outside the Church. It’s also possible that in the dioceses near the U.S.-Mexico border, some of the Catholic marriages may be occurring outside the diocese.
The Diocese of Las Vegas has the country’s lowest Catholic marriage rate (0.9 marriages in the Church per 1,000 Catholics). This may be related to the presence of the city of Las Vegas — said to be easiest place in the world to get married (outside the Church, that is).
You should be praised for “doing it right”.
But my sympathies lie with those poor, scared kids, who truly want to be like their parents and have a good marriage, a good life, and a big family, who look at it all as steep mountain, nearly impossible to climb.
While most people would think it was “crass materialism” holding them back, I think they are better than that. They cannot bear the thought of not being able to support their marriage, and it tears them apart to think that they could have children, yet not be able to provide for them.
I find it difficult to comprehend a situation in which sincerely religious couples would consider it better to cohabit without marriage than to marry without a royal blowout. Perhaps there’s a major socioeconomic divide, and I’m on the opposite side of it and hadn’t realized it.
However, if people reasoning in this way represent a significant percentage of young Catholics, then this is a very significant failure on the part of the Church, which has failed to communicate effectively the reality of the Sacraments rather than the visual display.
You can still make it (The Marriage) less expensive. Plenty of people expect something incredibly big in some ways than you would like to expect. Not just the religious ceremony, but the other aspects as well.
The interfaith part though, I will certainly agree it is more prevalent.
However, if people reasoning in this way represent a significant percentage of young Catholics, then this is a very significant failure on the part of the Church, which has failed to communicate effectively the reality of the Sacraments rather than the visual display.
It’s not just that, it’s also a matter of letting people know the reality that some things while not neccessarily the easiest, can be worth it, and people can help out with getting the marriage started. The Jews and the Chinese were willing to help the newlywed couple start the life together, especially given that often when the couples married together back then, they often did so before they probably had become all too well-established in their careers or wealth at the time of the actual marriage.
I am not advocating teen marriage in the slightest, but I am saying that the parents and the other family can provide some help at the start should those who wish to marry be willing to get the start at doing so. I would certainly prefer, once I have kids coming of their young adult age, that a newlywed child of mine live in some apartment rented out by me rather than a 35-40 year old having a “failure to launch” scenario.
Third option. Not to cohabit or marry. Bachelorhood for life.
Take an honorable person. After earning a college degree they are $100k in debt, but cannot get the high paying job they trained for. Even at that point, many will put off establishing a relationship until they can “afford it.” It’s even worse if both potential spouses are deeply in debt.
But even an individual does get that job, they are looking at a decade before they are just broke, not in debt. But this means a “lost decade” before they could begin where there parents were, when they were right out of college.
So instead of a 22 year old looking for a spouse, they are 32 years old. Females may have only eight to ten years left before menopause. But say they are “lucky” again. Married at 32, they are still penniless.
There is no way they could afford a mortgage on a horribly overpriced house, maybe five times more expensive than it should be. So if they want even one child, they will have to raise them in an apartment.
This is all generic models, of course, and many people have *some* advantages over it; but many have disadvantages added to it as well.
It is all too easy to just say, “I am too poor to date, or even if I could date I could never offer a decent life to a spouse, and children are out of the question. It is just better that I not *harm* anyone. There are still some people out there who can date, and marry, and have children, but I’m just not one of them.”
It’s not the CHURCH that costs $30,000.
It’s the RECEPTION.(Catering hall, Caterers, Flowers, Gowns, Band (I am a Wedding Musician! so I’m not knocking the Band LOL) Centerpieces, Tablecloths, Napkins, Place Settings, The CAKE, Those little favors at each place setting, Bridesmaid’s Gifts, Usher’s Gifts, Champagne for the toast, Liquor (if it’s an open bar), Tuxedos, and probably more more more.)
The Church can add to the cost..Candles, flowers, the organist and the Priest, but it’s tiny compared to the Reception.
My niece and her fiance went to City Hall and took care of the whole thing for about $50.00.
Her new M-I-L, who owns half of Ireland, will be having a big bash anyway.
So I do get your meaning, but it’s not really the Church that is the problem.
And I’ve agreed, from the start. The church cost is tiny. The add ons are nutty.
Yep. That $30,000 would make a nice down payment on a house for the new couple! :-)
Not many people are called to lifelong sexual continence, which is what we’re talking about for a person of sincere Christian faith. Recognizing this, a person (with help from his parents and other, wiser parties) might make different decisions in his life *before* he finds himself 40 and broke.
The situations you keep discussing exist, but they are not inevitable. People can make different choices, especially (as I mentioned earlier) if they see themselves as empowered decision-makers, responsible, to some extent, for their own outcomes, rather than victims of forces beyond their control.
It is getting harder and harder. Recent stats are showing that more and more college graduates are living with their parents, in Japan, they have become a subculture of “shut-ins”. According to their government, about 60% of single men and 80% of single women between the ages of 20 and 34 live with their parents.
But generally derogatory expressions for such singles are found all over the world, even in Italy and Brazil, where they are also common.
Yet noteworthy is that the vast majority of these people are not “players”, but instead they lead generally chaste lives. They have given up on the hope of mating and reproduction, the demands on them to do so “honorably” breaking their spirit.
Kind, gentle people who above all else do not want to hurt or harm.
If you say so. I don’t believe I know, or have ever known, someone who was living a monastic life due to economic constraints. I’ve no objections to anyone’s deciding to do that, whether because of economics or more personal factors, but it’s simply not something I’m seeing.
I know single people who are dating or engaged or cohabiting. I know married people, of all ages, with and without children. I know divorced and widowed people still single, and divorced and widowed people remarried or otherwise in a couple.
I know a few single people who are not dating or otherwise in relationships because they believe it’s morally wrong or practically imprudent to pursue romance when they are not ready for marriage. However, I don’t think any are expecting this to be a lifetime commitment; rather, it’s “until I graduate” or “until I have a job” or “until I’m a little older and interested in settling down.”
Thanks; you state it well that our choices more than anything else are causing this.
My sister recently gave me an older car she was replacing; it is now 14 years old (running reasonably well), and is the first car I’ve ever owned that only used one key (my four previous cars had separate keys for the doors & ignition). I felt lucky to get it, as the ‘93 Chrysler I was driving would never pass inspection, and it was due (head gasket was going). I always knew from the moment my wife and I started having children that I would never have a newer car or a nice home (I come from a large family), and that turned out to be correct; we have three now and the chance of having either is even more remote.
As we get older, we see a lot of people we know who chose otherwise are starting to regret their decisions, especially as they reach the age where the women would have difficulty bearing a child. They feel excluded from any conversations about children, and tend to cluster with other cat/dog people.
We all make choices about what we value more or less, at the personal level ... and the Church (as well as people’s parents) should be helping young people not only to recognize this but to recognize that some goods, such as family, are objectively of a higher value than others, such as granite countertops.
It seems, from some posts, that with a level of affluence of which I have no experience, there comes a type of fear, even to paralysis, of which I also have no experience. This is something the Church should be addressing, if it’s really affecting the lives of many people.
In fairness to today’s young people, there isn’t much reason to believe that they’ll have a job six months down the road, or that your spouse will even stay around (due to any number of factors, but finances play a large role in that). There really is nothing the Church can do about some of these things, and asking somebody to act on faith alone is difficult enough with a fifty year-old, never mind a twenty five year-old.
Children are a lifetime commitment; how can anyone be expected to make that commitment when car companies hawk their merchandise with unemployment provisions as well? Somebody who can’t see 36 months down the road isn’t even considering the lifetime commitment parenting demands.
Well ... there's your problem, right there.
Better to start with 2 years of community college, work, get the BS/BA on the 6 year plan, don't go to a more expensive college than you can afford ... whatever it takes to NOT be $100K in debt upon graduation.
And ...
Major in something useful.
Yes, the current employment market is very bad, but the decline in the number of marriages, and the increase in cohabitation/unmarried childbearing long predates the recent economic downturn. It was fairly common in my generation (I’m 45) ... my mother once phoned to thank me for getting married and staying married, instead of turning up on my parents’ doorstep with various kids and no plans to move out, as had happened to a number of her friends.
I agree - our society doesn’t encourage or support self-denial, sacrifice, long-term planning and responsibility, or much of anything that it takes to live through a Christian marriage. That’s why the Church, in my opinion, needs to make ever greater efforts, including giving practical guidance, perhaps in family life seminars, about thinking through decisions about college, debt, and expenditures such as weddings with an eye to the future.
My college education (at a private university) and my wedding, together, cost less than the proposed $30,000 wedding of our hypothetical young Catholic couple.
Admittedly, that was the 80s, but there are still merit and/or need based grants for college available, and there is still the potential for couples marrying to use common sense. It never occurred to me not to drive myself to the wedding, and then to the reception, in my old truck! I didn’t know about limos until I went to my high school friend’s Princess Di extravaganza. (Her sister was divorced before all the wedding bills even came in, let alone got paid!)
I’m 40, and few of my peers are unmarried with children in my area. They are either married with children, or have no intention of getting married or having children. I know that this pattern is very different even with people only 10 years younger than me; I can’t believe the number of 30 year-olds I meet who have children with somebody they never married and are no longer involved with. I remember girls being single mothers, but that seems to have occurred when they were between 16 and 20 years old (back when I was that age).
I don’t see the Church having any practical advice for people who have been raised outside the faith, and on top of that the Church’s efforts seem focused on helping other groups first.
I mentioned the Church’s role because the article is about marriages in the Catholic Church. If those numbers are dropping for any reason other than simple population change, then it’s an issue people should be addressing in that context.
That said, although numbers of Catholics seem to be increasing, it’s possible that we’re at a low point in the number currently at the usual age for marriage. That would be the children of people now 50-ish, kind of tail-end baby boomers. Maybe they had fewer children than average.
The people I know have more than average, both the ones my age and 5 to 20 years younger. Even on the swim team, a group with no obvious selection other than being at the pool, I’d say the median is 3 per family.
I see; in that case the irrelevance of the Church to that age group alone could explain the drop.
The only people still having 3 or more near me are civil servants (due to the assumption of lifetime unemployment without competition) and immigrants (legal & illegal).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.