Denver, Colo., Oct 24, 2018 / 10:08 am (CNA).- People who have had only one lifetime sexual partner have happier marriages than people with two or more lifetime partners, according to a new report from the Institute for Family Studies.
The study’s author, Dr. Nicholas Wolfinger of the University of Utah, found that women who have been sexually intimate only with their spouses are most likely to report having “very happy” marriages, at 65 percent. Among women with between six and ten lifetime sexual partners, only 52% reported being “very happy” in their marriage, the lowest in the study.
Among men, 71% with one partner reported being very happy with their marriage, according the study. For men who report two or more sexual partners, the number drops to 65 percent.
In addition, 40% of the study’s respondents reported having had only one or zero sexual partners before getting married. Wolfinger pointed out that the rate among younger Americans, who have married since 2000, is closer to 27 percent. The median American woman born in the 1980s has had three sex partners in her lifetime, and the median man six; just five percent of all women marrying in the 2010s were virgins.
“The surprisingly large number of Americans reporting one lifetime sex partner have the happiest marriages,” the study reads. “Past one partner, it doesn’t make as much of a difference. The overall disparity isn’t huge, but neither is it trivial.”
The study controlled for the religiosity of its subjects, which Wolfinger said has been shown by other studies to be a major factor in happy marriages, but not the only explanation. He said the data he has is not conclusive on this point.
“Coming into this beforehand, I would have expected religion to be one reason why people who don’t have a lot of sex partners would have happier marriages,” Wolfinger told CNA.
“Church attendance, in itself, produces happier marriages…but be that as it may, controlling for [denomination and church attendance] did not substantially affect the relationship between how many premarital sex partners you have and whether you’re in a very happy marriage.”
What this means, Wolfinger clarified, is that people are more likely to have a happy marriage if they have fewer premarital sexual partners whether they are religious or not.
One major factor affecting this result, he said, is the fact that premarital sex can often result in children born out of wedlock, which unfortunately tend to strain future relationships. Moreover, people who have had previous sexual partners before marriage may later compare their spouse to those previous partners, leading to a decline in the happiness of their marriage.
In a similar 2016 study, Wolfinger examined the divorce rate in relation to the number of sexual partners a woman has had in her lifetime. He found that survey respondents who had not had sexual partners before marriage had the lowest divorce rates, and those with ten or more partners in their lifetime were the most likely to spit up, with a 30% chance of divorce in the first 5 years of marriage.
Of those women who married in the 2000s without having first had sex, nearly 70% reported regularly attending some kind of church services, while less than 30% of women with ten or more partners were churchgoers.
“Everything should be on the table”
Father Brian O’Brien, a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa in Oklahoma, told CNA that the statistics presented in the IFS study are confirmed by his experience working in marriage preparation for 11 years. He said he often presents statistics to the couples he counsels, to try to help explain how premarital cohabitation and premarital sex can negatively affect the happiness of their marriage.
“Ultimately it comes down to: we’re not meant to be used,” O’Brien told CNA.
“I think what happens in a lot of cases is [people think]: ‘I’ll just sleep with a whole bunch of people, and maybe one of them will work out.’ And that’s exactly what happens in the movies…but the idea that you can just use somebody and move on as if that didn’t happen, I think is where the unhappiness sets in.”
People will remember the sexual partners that they had “along the way,” because sex bonds people together, he said. A bond with a person who is no longer in a person’s life will remain with them even if they start a new relationship, leaving a “lingering guilt,” “unresolved issues,” and “baggage” that makes new relationships that much more difficult.
“Marriage is hard enough, and it’s even harder if you’re bringing in a bunch of baggage,” he said. “For couples that are going to enter into a marriage covenant, everything should be on the table.”
O’Brien said that the broader trend in society of couples coming into marriage with multiple sexual partners, as evidenced by statistics cited in the IFS study, has also manifested itself among the couples he counsels.
“I go into [marriage prep] assuming, until I talk to them, that the couple is probably living together, and I assume that they are sexually active,” O’Brien said.
“I tell [couples] that I want their marriage to be as happy and holy as possible, and your marriage will be happier and holier if you abstain from sex and if you don’t live together.”
O’Brien said he thinks most couples who are living together know what they’re doing is wrong, especially when it comes to being sexually active. He said he suspects that there are many couples that don’t see anything wrong with cohabitation before marriage, viewing the move primarily as an economic decision.
“It’s not that they’re sort of ‘trying each other out,’ it’s that ‘we don’t want to pay two rents,'” O’Brien explained. “So I think in that way they’re not really flaunting Church teaching, they’re trying to make good economic decisions.”
He said he takes a pastoral approach to the couple’s situation, affirming them in their good decisions and “meeting them where they are.”
“If they’re not living together, and they’re not sexually active, it’s my chance to say: “Awesome! Great job!” and to really affirm them in those decisions,” he said.
He said generally in the second or third marriage prep meeting, he’ll ask some basic information such as the couple’s home address. If the couple is already living together, they will often admit it at that point, if reluctantly.
“They’ll look at each other like: ‘Oh no. Should we give him the same address?’ And as soon as they do that, I’ll ask ‘So do you guys live at the same place?’ And they have this guilty look on their face, and they’ll say yes,” O’Brien said.
“And I’ll say: ‘Ok, I’m not yelling at you, but obviously you guys feel bad about it.’ So then we’ll kind of take that and discuss it as we go.”
O’Brien said despite popular opinion that may suggest that fewer people are seeking marriage in the Catholic Church, he and his fellow priests in Oklahoma are engaged in marriage prep and presiding at weddings “all the time.”
“I’m not ready to throw in the towel on the young people of the Church,” he said. “Because I think there really is a desire to have God as part of their marriage, and they’re not finding that in other places.”
Father Zach Swantek, a chaplain at Seton Hall University, offered his thoughts about his experience with modern marriage prep in an email to CNA.
“Often priests are afraid to discuss issues such as pre-marital sex, chastity, cohabitation, contraception and even participation in the Church with [couples], for fear that they will be offended or scared off,” Swantek wrote.
“On the other hand, some priests boast about how they refuse to marry couples that fail to live in strict adherence to the teachings of the Church, yet do not help these couples to understand and live these teachings,” he added.
“Marriage preparation must be viewed as an opportunity to accompany the couple, gradually leading them to the fullness of truth about faith, sacraments and marriage. This requires patience and work, but it is well worth the effort.”
[…]
If the Catholic Church and its agencies want to help immigrants, that’s fine. Just do it with money that belongs to the Catholic Church. Tax dollars confiscated from taxpayers to do the work of the Church should end…NOW!
Nope. No amnesty for those who entered illegally. Reagan did that with the expectation that the border would be secured. Democrats flooded the country with illegals again. They all go back. All of them.
The Catholic Church applauded and abetted the entry into the United States of people who knowingly broke the law by how they arrived. The Catholic Church even profitted greatly in their act. Now our bishops want to say, “Well, since they’re already here, why not let them stay.” But arriving here as a lawbreaker is not the way to start life in a new country. Rather, I’d propose that anyone here illegally and who has committed no other crimes since arriving, should be asked to voluntarily leave the country. They can be fingerprinted on the way out or use that photo ID system that we citizens are subjected to when we leave or re-enter the USA. They will be repatriated to their country of origin where they can re-apply for residency on an expedited basis. Their entry, then, into the USA can be normalized and they can once again resume life in a country where laws mean something. Acting on emotions is never a way to apply the law.
How about: if you have been deported for illegally and grossly overstaying a Visa or illegally entering, then you do not get to enter legally. If you deport yourself, there’ll be no record of deportation, and you can go through the normal process. (Possibly I’m making incorrect assumptions about illegal immigration processes) Exceptions for those under 18. I don’t see a reason to deport children who’ve been here most of their lives.
If potential immigrants get bonus points for speaking English and knowing the American way of life, self-deported illegals should have a leg up on the rest of the applicants, assuming they tried to integrate while they were here.
Let’s remember some salient facts:
1. There are millions of illegal aliens in this country.
2. They are earning incomes off-the-books
3. They are not paying taxes
4. The rest of the hard-working American citizens are paying more than their fair share for services that taxes provide
5. In effect, this entire Illegal Immigration Industry (that the Catholic Church receives remuneration for) is STEALING FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS. Where’s the charity in that, you bishops?
It seems the Archbishop is saying , while we should secure our borders, at the same time we should normalize those who are here as undocumented IF they are living as productive law abiding people. They would then become contributing taxpayers. Judging the number of “Help Wanted” signs in every town, I would conclude that they are very much needed. If we expelled them who would pick our crops? I’m in no way suggesting that we take advantage of them and keep them permanently in a lower class, but rather that they are welcomed and allowed every opportunity to better themselves and advance their social standing. Over several centuries every wave of immigrants has started at the bottom and worked their way up. Orderly paths to citizenship should be provided. This is the American way. They wouldn’t be here in the first place if we had secure boarders. Since they are here we should allow them to legally integrate.
They entered illegally. They committed a crime. They should return.
The Vatican recently increased penalties on illegals going into Vatican City. What does the Archbishop think of that?
He should have stopped at paragraph seven.
“If President Trump is able to shut down the border successfully, making illegal entry into our country virtually impossible, does it not make more sense to create a pathway for the undocumented to be able to earn legal status?”
Honestly, no. This “pathway to citizenship” narrative is inappropriate and unacceptable. There is already a formal process for immigrants to become citizens. That process must be honored, and it must apply equally to everyone. No amnesty, no work visas, no exceptions.
I voted for J.D. Vance. I never voted for any bishop to weigh in on immigration policy. That is left for laypersons in the Church to deliberate about. Bishops should stay in their own lane.
Bishops are the Church’s official teachers on faith and morals, and government policy is partly applied morality. They have reason to weigh in. But they should be careful not to speak beyond their knowledge, as we all should.
The Church does have “an obligation to care for every person with respect and love, no matter their citizenship status.”
That includes the children of American citizens whose parents are both working, one of them working two jobs, just to be able to provide their children with the basic essentials, and still can’t do that without slowly drowning in credit card debt.
Such children don’t get to spend anywhere near enough time with their parents. They are basically being raised by the secular school system, which in many cases indoctrinates them with values contrary to the Christianity of their parents.
Why are such families in this dire situation? Because massive, out of control, unregulated immigration (open borders) has driven down wages that far.
The Church’s approach to immigration hasn’t been treating such families with “respect and love.” It has instead coldly abandoned them, leaving their vulnerable children in a terrible situation.
The difference between Archbishop Naumann’s pleas for reasonable accommodation marks the spiritual heart of a man of God, a man committed to his brother as well as faith in Christ – from the many who continue to show no compassion whatsoever in their commitment to civil law. Whereas Naumann, a staunch traditional Catholic, is not a legalist when there’s room for charity.
Idiot compassion is not genuine compassion. Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s. We are a nation of laws. Illegal aliens do not deserve compassion; they are technically criminals, so the appropriate response is deportation.
At judgment do you believe Christ will consider the difference as just or unjust?
I seem to recall a bible passage where Jesus asked His disciples to pay their tax with a coin found in the mouth of a fish. I have no recollection of Him advising civil unrest, which his disciples had initially hoped for. And I recall Him saying “render to Caesar”. Jesus never advocated breaking the civil law ( something his followers believed the Messiah would apparently do.) . I dont recall him making an allowance for illegal aliens either, some of whom commit violent crimes like rape and murder. Breaking into another nation is a crime.
Too many churchmen mistake Christianity for socialism or communism. It is not. Nor is it a sin to be a successful person or nation. Which means no one has a right to TAKE what belongs from you without your consent. The US donates foreign aid in numbers much larger than the next few nations combined. WE dont owe anyone anything. I dont recall Christianity EVER teaching that one has an obligation to stand by and be the punching bag of those with less means.
STEALING what you want is a great deal different than asking for help.
Charity belongs to God.
Illegal immigrants do not deserve compassion??
I’m all for law & order. A secure border protects everyone’s safety but I have a great deal of compassion for people brought here as children through no fault of their own. Even Gov. Rick Perry said we can be law abiding & still have a heart. We’re Catholics. We’re not 100% on one political team or the other. We can consider humane exceptions.
Whew! Good to hear your voice mrscracker. For awhile I thought compassion, even limited to hard cases had died among the faithful.
Amen, well said. I would hope that there is room for courteous and fruitful dialogue between men who are both reasonable and devout, which certainly includes both the Archbishop and the Vice-President. There is room for discussion about nuance and prudential judgements between such men, sorely lacking in, say, the endless simplistic pronouncements of the talking heads of CNN and Fox.
I don’t think disagreement on what is a reasonable way to approach illegal immigrants is necessarily evidence of legalism or a lack of compassion.
Possibly people are aware that there are only so many immigration officials, and the backlog in legal immigration applicants is years-long, sometimes over a decade. Giving illegals amnesty is not without cost to potential legal immigrants.
Fr. Morello, as multiple outlets have now reported, the USCCB has been operating a large contract for immigration-related services valued at over 100 millions dollars, which seems to include transferring federal funds to individual dioceses. Evidence is that they have been filing expenses and being reimbursed on a monthly basus. That is not “charity,” that is a contractual relationship to provide services for the federal government. There are charitable motivations behind it, and no doubt the individuals providing the services truly want to help others. But they are being paid for services, and only a minuscule fraction of their funding comes from charitable donations.
Whatever the relationship between the USCCB and the federal government has been in the past, the organization is now a major federal contractor by any reasonable standard.
So until more bishops, priests and Church employees connected to these contracts & grants are willing to openly discuss the ramifications and possible consequences of their heavy reliance on federal funding to perform essential missions of the Church, the appeals to “charity” will ring hollow. They are talking like people in denial of the basic circumstances in which they’re operating, and expecting others, especially laypeple, to tacitly go along with their delusions. I’m sorry to find that I have yet to find one bishop or priest who is being candid about this. Therefore now, I can’t fully trust what any of them say on the subject of relief for migrants and immigrants. But I will keep looking for one.
The good Archbishop, along with many other bishops, asserts that the church
does not have the authority or responsibility to determine the legal status of
migrants. But there is a profound difference between legal and illegal immigration –
and that is the crux of the problem. Many Americans support legal
immigration, not illegal immigration. Ignoring this difference is naive and irresponsible.
The church should encourage all people to obey the law.The church itself has
rules and laws – canon Law. Lawless behavior does not promote the common good which the church is always preaching.
And the Vatican itself does not permit the uncontrolled influx of migrants
into its territory.
So it’s looking like the Catholic dioceses throughout the United States have gotten themselves into a bad position by tacitly accepting responsibility for taking care of the unprecedented floods of would-be immigrants during the past 3-4 years because of the Biden administration’s lax enforcement of border security and immigration laws. Catholic Charities organizations seem to have unquestionably accepted the additional funding offered by the previous administration, as well as the administration’s approach, and now they are stuck dealing with the aftermath. They must have counted on Joe or Kamala Harris winning the election and continuing to throw more money at the various “refugee” assistance and othe4 programs.
Worst of al, the bishops seem to have fully embraced the Biden-era blurring of distinctions between “refugees” (a limited group) and the much larger group of people seeking to emigrate for economic reasons (who do not qualify as refugees). Now they are stuck trying to care for whatever percentage of the 5-million-plus people they are contractually obligated to assist. And it is Annual Appeal season. No wonder we are seeing multiple bishops coming forth with statements that are basically variations on the same set of messages. They want to keep the Biden-era levels of funding going.
I have a couple of comments.
The USCCB and individual bishops often call for immigration reform for our broken system, without saying what reform they want. Archbishop Naumann at least states what he wants – to make legal the illegals, or at a minimum to give them work permits. He proposes a fine, but they are economic immigrants and have very little money. What has been broken about our immigration system is a failure to enforce our immigration laws.
The bishop states, “It is inconceivable that our previous administration either did not know or care about the location or the circumstances of approximately 300,000 children and youth who entered the United States during the past four years.”
I find it inconceivable that the bishops did not know about the 300,000 children since it had been in the news for a long time.
Alhough it is not in this article, the bishops often say that we should welcome the stranger. We do welcome the stranger about one million times a year with legal immigrants. If the bishops do not think that this is an adequate number, they should tell us why, and what the correct number should be in their opinion.
In general the bishops try to conceal that they want legalization of illegals, by not using that language in their 2025 voting guide, but rather saying that, “We must stand with newcomers, authorized and unauthorized.”
Vatican threatens illegal immigrants who may dare enter the Vatican grounds:
“Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
I did a quick search on top salaries at Catholic Relief Services. I’m removing the names because I haven’t verified the following:
President: $596,5512
Executive VP of Strategy, Technology & Communications: $356,3882
Executive VP of Overseas Operations: $352,028
Apparently, charity pays very well, especially when using other people’s money.
The average VP salary in the US for a charity is $157,532; in California it’s 203,000. For a CEO, the average is 865,000. However, the average charity is nowhere near as large as CRS is, and one can expect above-average salary for above-average work.
Charitable officials, like government officials, may well be in it more for the spending power than for their personal salary. Motivations are typically impossible to observe, and trying tends toward rash judgement, which is why we judge by the fruits, and by adherence to other Catholic moral teachings (like contraception).
“Sadly, our population is declining in the United States because of abortion, many adults choosing not to marry, and married couples having fewer children. Our birth rate is below replacement level. Without immigrants, our population decline would be even more severe.”
When was the last time the USCCB issued a statement regarding the need for Americans to marry, refrain from contraception, and have children?
There has been success in raising birth rates when Catholic and Orthodox bishops in a few other countries have promised to be godparent to those in their diocese who request it, or for the third child of those in their diocese who request it. This is something a single bishop could have a direct impact on.
When was the last time the USCCB issued a statement regarding the need for Americans to marry, refrain from contraception, and have children?’
************
Good point.
The problem is the more liberal bishops and priests are controlling the issue in the United States.