Loading ...
These days some Catholics often wonder what’s to be done about the number of divorced and remarried Catholics. This has long been a subject of concern for Cardinal Kasper, but Cardinal Pompedda also recently made noises about the matter. Faithful Catholics, like Cardinal Trujilo, aware that the Church has no power to reverse her teaching about Christian marriage, made it plain that there is no need to revisit the question about denying the Eucharist to those who insist upon living in adulterous second “marriages”.
One move that the Kasper - Pompedda camp seems fond of is a reductio ad absurdum premissed on the innocent children born of the second marriage. So one might say: look at the innocent children, what will become of them without a mother and father living a normal life together? it would be wrong if the Church asked their parents to live separately; therefore, the Church should recognize, if only in the way of an unfortunate fait accompli, the positive moral status of this second (or third or 26th or whatever) union.
I think that we are right to be concerned about the fate of the children and the circumstances of their education, whether they have a home with mother and father, or only one parent. Yet the problem we face isn’t altogether new, and some of us might be interested to see how a saint handled a similar situation in Cuba, about 150 years ago. Do consider the following example yourselves, but it seems to be the case that his approach coincided with the conservative approach today: it’s unfortunate for the children, but there’s no helping the fact that the parents must separate.
The saint in question is Antonio Maria Claret, the Archbishop of Santiago de Cuba. He arrived in Cuba from Spain in 1851. The island was in moral disorder, especially as regards irregular living situations, so to speak. Many of the Spainish planned to return to Spain after a period in Cuba, and so they regarded their attachments on the island as transitory. His biography relates:
“The unhappy fact was that the Spanish-descended Cubans rarely condescended to marry their Negro and mulatto concubines, even when their half-caste progeny might number as many as nine or ten. Rightly suspecting that this intolerable state of affairs might prove typical, he attacked the problem vigorously. A committee was appointed to study each case individually. On its recommendations, he let it be known, all such unions must be regularized or, where impediments existed, dissolved!”
Certain areas of the island proved more tractable in this matter than others. The carnal man is not so easily separated from his concubine! Surely, the educated readers of this blog recall a similar incident in the life of Pope St. Gregory VII, one of the most remarkable men of all times, when he had to put down a revolt of German clerics who “informed the papal legate that they would rather renounce their priesthood than their wives, and that he for whom men were not good enough might go seek angels to preside over the Churches.” When asking a man to live in perfect chastity, whether he is a priest or layman, it is no easy request, and so we should hardly be surprised at the open revolt of lay Catholics today in this matter.
But it’s one thing when people drag their feet in returning to virtue, and it’s another when they throw their immorality in the face of a saint! Needless to say, Gregory VII crushed the revolt in Germany, applying the ban of excommunication where needed, principally against the Holy Roman Emperor, who had been behind the clerical agitations. Anthony Claret also knew where to draw the line:
“He foresaw the defiance he must surely encounter in a society addicted to self-indulgence and shot through with corruption. It was simply appalling that concubinage and divorce were casually practiced by a large part of a public traditionally Catholic and certainly sentimentally attached to the Faith! . . . . the situations he would inevitably confront in the more sophisticated localities were bound to demand more drastic measures than admonishment, loving kindness and holy example! How would he manage to convince the more affluent Cubans that their undeniable affection for the Faith must be earned by the sacrifice of their no less characteristic sensuality?
. . . .
“When the archbishop finally, under his right and duty, demanded a list of all the divorced and those living in concubinage [in this difficult area of the island], even the civil authorities undertook to trick him with an obviously inaccurate report. The warden of the prison insolently escorted three pregnant women into his presence to inquire cynically which he was obligated to marry! This was the last straw. Anthony Claret demanded and obtained the warden’s arrest. The man was admonished to devote his term on the less familiar side of the bars to meditation upon his ‘novel problem of conscience.’ Doubtless he would thereafter be able to decide for himself which of these ‘disgraceful females’ held the most valid claim upon him!”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Clara and Tobias,
Please read the following item and realize the paragraphs below are for those couples who are cohabiting but also have the desire to be married…so it’s not exactly the same situation you are presenting, however…
The following comments are based on documents and publications from the U.S. bishops:
The reasons for cohabitation should be examined with the parties. Cohabitation may be an indication of the parties’ inadequate formation in the faith, rejection of the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage, fear or disbelief in commitment, or excessive individualism. Other motives, such as economic concerns, the desire to test the relationship, or social pressure, should also be discussed. Information should be provided to couples who cohabit about the high rate of divorce and other problems among those who cohabit prior to marriage (see USCC, Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples, Part 1, questions 4-5; NCCB, Faithful to Each Other Forever, pp. 71-77).
Two extremes are to be avoided: One, immediately confronting the cohabiting couple and condemning their behavior. Two, ignoring the cohabitation aspect of the relationship (Faithful to Each Other Forever, p. 74). In most cases, parties cohabiting prior to marriage are to be encouraged to separate. An exception to this would be in cases where the couple already has children. “Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation” (USCC, Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples, Part 2, question 5). If the couple refuses to separate or if the couple already has children, they should be counseled to arrange for separate sleeping accommodations. In such a case, they are to be informed of the danger of leaving themselves in a situation of temptation to sin. Also, they are to be informed of the scandal that they give to others in cohabiting and in appearing to be living in the state of grave sin.
The motives for seeking marriage at the present time can be a good indication of the approach to take with cohabiting couples. “For couples who have seriously planned marriage, and who decided to live together for practical reasons such as finance or convenience, the pastoral minister can focus on their understanding of the meaning of sacrament and the commitment to permanence and stability in marriage. For couples whose cohabitation seems more casual, and for whom no previous commitment seems to have been made, in addition to the treatment of commitment and sacrament, special attention is given to overall readiness for marriage and for permanent lifetime commitment. For couples whose reasons for seeking marriage are more for the sake of appearance, or to accommodate social or family needs, and little evidence is presented to indicate either spiritual or psychological maturity for marriage, a postponement of further marriage preparation, at least at this time, can be considered” (USCC, Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples, Part 2, question 3).
The follow (as you will see, is based on a couple cohabiting but intend to get married)…
FROM EWTN CATHOLIC “EXPERTS” Q&A FORUMS:
Cohabitation question
Question from on 10-25-2004:
I have often heard that cohabitation prior to marriage is illicit because it implies premarital sex. This leaves me quite confused as to whether cohabitation without premarital sex is licit or illicit. If illicit even without premarital sex, is it ever permitted for in circumstances of financial necessity (i.e. are a chaste couple in need of eachother’s financial support to hold down rent or mortgage permitted to cohabitate?)
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 10-25-2004:
Cohabitation (including fornication) prior to marriage is gravely sinful. I wrote this in my other answer posted earlier today, so I am not sure why you are confused. Illicit is a legal term meaning “illegal.” There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law against cohabitation. It is a violation of moral law, not canon law.
A couple living together before marriage for financial reasons would still be immoral. According to St. Paul, it is wrong to do evil for the sake of achieving good. Even if a couple was not sexually active, it would still be wrong because it would be a source of scandal to others.
Perhaps I should add that it is also most imprudent to cohabitate before marriage. Couples who cohabit prior to marriage can greatly impair their discretion in marrying. Cohabitation often results in internal pressure on the parties to marry. Occasionally added to this is pressure to marry put on the parties by family and friends or even by one party on the other as a result of the cohabitation. The guilt frequently associated with living in a state of grave sin often limits a person’s use of the critical faculty of judgment and results in a limitation of one’s freedom, making marriage to a particular person seem inevitable. The reasons for cohabitation should be examined with the parties.
Unfortunately, what is happening (at least in many places in the U.S.) are two different extremes. On the one hand, some priests are immediately confronting the cohabitating couple and condemning their behavior and refusing to marry them. On the other hand, some priests ignore the fact that they are cohabitating. These two approaches are easier for the priest, but they are not good approaches.
Encouraging the parties to separate is appropriate. However, “since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation (USCC, Marriage Preparation and Cohabitating Couples, Part 2, question 5).
If the couple refuses to separate (or if the couple already has children), it seems that they should be counseled to arrange for separate sleeping accomodations as a minimum. In such a case, they should also be informed of the danger they are leaving themselves in as a situation of temptation to sin. Also, it seems appropriate for them to be informed of the scandal that they can give to others in appearing to be living in a state of grave sin.
In my pastoral practice, where couples refuse to separate, if they are going to arrange separate sleeping arrangements, then I suggest that they give witness to this fact to family and friends by pointing out the separate sleeping arrangements to others.
For Heaven’s sake, what happened? I thought we were having a nice, sensible conversation here and suddenly there’s all this drama and launching of accusations.
At around this time last year, it was explained to me by my catechist, a *very* orthodox man who is now an FSSP priest, that frequenting near occasions of sin is ordinarily itself a sin, but that it sometimes might not be, given sufficient justification. The classic example is the recovering alcoholic who is also a priest and must say Mass. He might be tempted to relapse into old habits when he tastes the alcohol on his lips, but under some circumstances it is necessary to risk it. Other examples might be the policeman who may enter brothels or strip clubs for the purpose of enforcing the law, or the prosecutor who must look at pornographic materials in order to prepare a case against the person who created them.
The texts you cite don’t seem to make your point very well. For one thing, they’re not addressing the situation at hand; they concern people who are eligible to be married but who are cohabitating *first* for other reasons. But even then, they seem to suggest that it might be appropriate for unmarried couples to simply find separate sleeping quarters in the meantime, if they already have children. Where marriage is permanently impossible, and reunification with the true spouse is also impossible, surely the case would be even stronger for maintaining this type of arrangement.
Look, I’m not definitely saying that this is okay, and many circumstances would need to be taken into account. It is obviously better for children to live with married parents, but when people have made mistakes and subsequently repented this might not always be possible. Enduring constant temptation is obviously less than ideal, and there is also the possibility of causing scandal. But the alternative is deadly serious as well — asking mothers or fathers to abandon their families. That might cause scandal as well, to say nothing of the scarring it might cause the children and the other parent who in most cases probably would not agree that the split was for the best.
Finally, Johnboy, please do try to be a bit more civil. We are all friends here, and there is really no need to be so accusing. We of the Cornell Society for a Good Time do believe in fraternal correction, but such correction, when it is necessary, should always be offered gently and lovingly.
Clara,
I am sorry to say that you are looking too deeply into this in my opinion. The fact is, cohabitation is OBJECTIVELY sinful. There are no reasons to justify it. This isn’t the same as NFP, for example, because you aren’t talking about something that is OBJECTIVELY ok. As for the interesting “exceptions” given by the FSSP priest to the fact that to FREQUENT near occasions of sins is in and of itself sinful; I respectively must state that the instances in which you give are for OBJECTS sought that are intrinsically moral…this is in contrast to FREQUENTING near occasions of sins per se. It is obvious the difference herein lies in the fact that we as Christians are always bombarded with occasions to sin, but to FREQUENT them per se is considered to mean that you do so with no proper OBJECT sought. Much like Psuedo-T pointed out earlier with Thomas Aquinas (although his input now would be appreciated). You see otherwise, one might need to withdraw completely from this world (St. Paul mentioned that somewhere I believe) because the “world” is a temptation. The difference here is that you don’t go and SEEK OUT occasions to sin.
Again, you might point out that the object sought for a cohabiting couple may be to serve as parents to the children. However, the MEANS (aka cohabiting) is the OBJECT to obtain the apparent good. This is why it does not reconcile with Romans 3:7-8. The difference needs to be understood in order to understand where I am coming from. In all honesty I think it would be more appropriate to not address my reasoning but rather point out that the difference in our “positions” is in the fact that I believe ipso facto that cohabitation is immoral; whereas you believe it could be considered moral given certain circumstances….
Additionally, I would wager that the articles I have brought forth regarding couples cohabiting with the intent to marry are enough to conclude that indeed COHABITATION is immoral. That was the point. You seem to point out that there are EXCEPTIONS in instances where the couple lacks the desire for marriage. However, I obviously disagree. Whether this means accusations on my part is for you to interpret.
Yes, clearly we do disagree about whether cohabitation is necessarily, objectively sinful, though in the view I have articulated the desire for marriage or lack of such has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But I think this discussion has pretty well played itself out. As regards the question of tone, I would suggest using the caps lock key less often.
I agree with Clara and Tobias that the very specific scenario that Clara and Tobias describe is not exactly the same thing as co-habitation. I do think that parents should almost always separate, because I do not think the general suffering of the children is enough reason to go to such extremes. Speaking as one who has failed many times, if you intend on convincing Clara of something, I think that you will need to use a little bit more clarity, and a little bit more gentility.
With Clara, I agree that we best let this topic die.
I *only* respond when I believe I need to make an apologetic response to someone.
I understand that the desire for marriage in the case you describe “has nothing to do with it.” Which is why I stated the intent of the articles was to address whether cohabitation is objectively sinful. Please quit readjusting my comments to suit your fancy! This, unfortunately, has been in my shoes a seemingly breach of charity on Clara’s part; though I did not state this until now. My entire point is that to address the topic at hand is more vital to HONEST debate…not the nuances one might find within words on a computer screen.
I suggest you take it up with the Church; not with me. And on this topic I would err on the side of caution, considering the obvious effects of scandal and temptation would be present in such an arrangement.
As for charity I suppose I will end with the words of St. Paul:
“May I not seem as one frightening you through letters. For someone will say, ‘His letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.’ Such a person must understand that what we are in word through letters when absent, that we also are in action when present” (2 Corinthians 10:9-11).
God bless.
I’d like to suggest that aside from scandal, fornication, and the near occasion of it are sinful to cohabitation.
The relationship of husband and wife goes far beyond the sexual act, it is involved with the daily life of communion between man and woman which God designed us for in marriage. Appropriating this communion for non married couples is sinful in itself, even if they live chastely.
Thanks for the help! I agree 100%.
But I must admit the “opponents” did think through it pretty well, and you could see they had good intentions. However, we would agree differently.
I wasn’t going to wade back into this, and truly I don’t want to continue this far, but I’m genuinely curious. Matt points out quite rightly that marriage involves much more than just the marital act… the idea, though, is that the marital act is the only one that married people are in all cases forbidden from sharing with anyone else. Sharing possessions, a table, household chores, holidays, interests, and worries about people you both love are also important parts of marriage. But I’ve shared all of those things with my sister, too, without any danger of infidelity to my fiance. If unmarried parents can avoid adultery (which also covers the fornication that Matt mentioned) it isn’t necessarily wrong for their lives to intersect in some other ways.
But enough! I really am just curious about your answer to this question. Suppose we have a man who is raised Catholic. He marries, and after a few years his wife leaves him and remarries. They have no children and also no reasonable grounds for annullment. He falls in love and, being a somewhat lukewarm Catholic anyway, he decides to go ahead and remarry civilly. But one day he has a change of heart and wants to come back to the Church. He knows he must stop living in sin, but he now has children aged five and three, and one more on the way. In the interpretation of Matt and Johnboy (and anyone else who wishes to comment), what is the correct thing for him to do at this juncture?
1) Abandon his family and not look back, except perhaps for sending support checks (which he will be legally required to do anyway.)
2) Abandon them, but move across town. The kids can visit him sometimes there, but he will avoid contact with their mother.
3) Move across the street or into the family guest house. There he can continue to share family meals and activities and help out with chores and childcare.
4) Continue to live in the house, but in a different bedroom, avoiding conjugal relations with the children’s mother.
I would like to say “what would Jesus do?” but obviously He would not be in that situation. Unfortunately, the Gospel demands a radical conversion of lifestyle. I would suspect the only method, however hard and difficult it would be, is for the couple to separate (this does not mean alienate). I believe the witness it would one day give to the kids would outweigh the initial heartaches. Also, remember God is always able to have His hand in it all, particularly when a person does such a radical thing to follow the Gospel. In all honesty, though, the couple has lived a lie. [False] compassion for the children is unfortunately something I truly believe the devil will try to instill (is not similar logic applied to euthanasia?). God’s ways, however, are not our ways.
Please do not think I hold a rigorous notion of marriage. Indeed I do realize there are instances when a married couple must separate for serious reasons…and that is not sinful. But here we are talking about a couple who is living an adulterous lifestyle.
In an old morality book (Pre Vatican II by the way) it states that one may put one’s self in to what would normaly be a near occasion of sin if there is a overwealming moral reason to do so for example if one would have to enter a disreputable establishment in order to save someone, however you must of course spiritualy prepare yourself and pray that you be given grace not to fall. If the case is not great enough then you should certainly never put yourself into such a situation however the case of a Divorce and “Remaried” couple with children might at times be such a grave case. John Paul II has contenanced living together in chastity in such extream situations. Dane E. Ryan
Anonymous,
I bet you can’t find any sources on that JPII comment.
Okay, Johnboy, that’s about enough sass.
From John Paul’s Apostolic Exhortation, the epic Familiaris Consortio
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180)
Well, I’ll be. Thanks alot, Jacobus! That sounds alot like (i.e. identical with) what Clara and I said earlier. I am shelving my “retraction.”
Thank you, Iacobus. Very good of you to track down that reference!
Perhaps that ends the need for this comment but I was just going to say: I think the reality is that most people in these sorts of family situations are just lost to the Church. Literally tearing your family apart for the sake of the faith is just such an incredibly heavy burden; very few will have such a complete change of heart that they will be willing to shoulder it. Possibly they might repent on their deathbeds, or after their unwed partner dies, but while their children are still young… unlikely.
There’s not much to be done about it; hard as they are, these are the realities if marriage is a sacrament. But if we can open a window here or there, and retain the sanctity of marriage while occasionally lightening those burdens a bit, it seems to me a good thing. Keep in mind that these arrangements still ought to be discussed with one’s priest; in cases where it actually would be better for the kids for the couple to separate (ie, if one had a good chance of reconciliation with a spouse, or if the unmarried mother had a chance to marry), then they could be advised to take that course.
Very good…although:
Did you all read the whole thing in context? The Holy Father points out in this section that “Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay.”
Also, “By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.”
So I would conjecture the state is indeed wrong…however, the Holy Father does want to encourage the Church to provide pastoral concern for a really wacky situation. I would note that he ends this section clearly indicating that his hope is that the couple would obtain the GRACE OF CONVERSION. This would ultimately mean ending the evil state!
I was thinking too the Church does no good casting people off…rather, providing means to bring them to salvation. That is the intent.
So, Johnboy316, I am at a loss. No one here said that such a state (i.e. a couple that cannot validly/licitly marry living together in complete chastity for the sake of their illegitimate children) was “good” or “ideal.” We claimed that in certain circumstances it might be justified for a greater good and might therefore be permissible. Which is what Pope John Paul II stated in the letter, right? So there should be no further argument.
Tobias,
But no one with your “view” has said what the Holy Father stated: It is an “obligation to separate” and that the arrangement is “evil” (never mind not “good” or “ideal”). I would not believe the Holy Father is saying there are reasons to justify living together, much rather in the event it is practically impossible, the couples lives must still point to the norm (in this case the only possible application is complete continence).
Here’s a question I have which will extinguish my prodding:
Is the Holy Father stating that the couple who is practically unable to separate allowed to go to confession and then communion if they remain in complete continence??? ie, Does that satisfy conversion?
johnboy,
Yes, that is what our late Holy Father, John Paul II said. In plain terms: there is an obligation to separate if you cannot marry. However, there are grave reasons, such as the rearing of children, that make it necessary not to separate. In these occasions, the couple must confess and remain in complete continence and, presumably, separate when the rearing of children reachest its finish, if they are not able by that time to marry licitly. That DOES satisfy conversion in the eyes of JPII.
Thanks, Ambrosius.
I will look into this further for my own understanding, separate from this blog.
God bless.
Thank you, Ambrosius — well stated. That is all I argued, and if I said anything over, above, or contrary to that, please disregard it. I am happy that (at long last) this discussion has brought some light in addition to heat.
I feel at least a little better hearing the following “expert” response:
communion for divorced
Question from on 01-14-2006:
i go to a catholic school and even thouhg sometimes I know I need more faith I am a true believer go goes frequently to communion. My parents are a beautiful couple but neither of them can´t go to communion because my father divorced on his first marriage. This situation sometimes makes me not agree with the church, because I think that even though they are not married by the church God loves them as if they were and understands their situation. Our family is really beautiful and we are really close to my sisters from my dad´s first marriage. Once I talked to this person really close to the church and told me that for them to take communion they should live like “sibblings”, i felt like i was being told I was a nature´s mistake, the reasons I was given for the situation of no communion did´t have enough consistance for me. Please help me because we have this religion debate at school and i should take a position (ok or not ok with it) regarding this theme. Thank You
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 01-21-2006:
Oh no. Not the “live as brother-sister” thing again.
People who are married outside of the Church should do all possible to try to rectify their situation (e.g., petition for a declaration of nullity for a prior marriage, convalidate the current marriage in the Church). If this is not possible, then they are obligated to separate, not live as brother and sister.
Living as brother and sister is only tolerated for some grave reason — e.g., having dependent children at home. It is not an alternative to separating in other circumstances. And once children are grown and out, then the obligation to separate applies.
I have given lengthier answers on the brother-sister question recently, so for more information, please read some earlier posts. But keep in mind that the Church is not in the business of arranging for men and women to live as siblings. The Church calls us to the ideal — valid marriage, or separation.
When you say, “I don’t agree with the Church,” you are really saying, “I don’t agree with Christ,” as Christ is the source of the Church’s teachings against divorce and remarriage.