HomeschoolNFPDad, thanks for your confirmation re Lucky. Back in my mother’s day, one WAS excommunicated for divorce, but I thought that had changed.

This is going to sound a bit overextended (and ling-winded), but it is an important point. One was never excommunicated for divorce, not even back in your mother’s day. One might excommunicate oneself, even today, for remarrying after divorce, but even this would depend upon the particulars. There are folk who remarry after divorce, live celibately – even under the same roof – and pursue a potentially legitimate annulment. Objectively understood, such a scenario would not constitute sin, much less excommunication. But such cases are admittedly rare.

There are also those with paper annulments who have never presented a case before a defender of the bond, probably because their diocese just didn’t do that sort of thing. And they live within the bonds of a sacramental union whose external form is valid. What God may have to say to such folk is beyond me: he will no doubt be merciful – more merciful by far than the diocesan authorities who never defended the prior bond. But there’s something not quite right here. And in our modern Church the (very few) remarried Catholics who live celibately while pursuing a case before the defender of the (prior) bond are usually treated far worse than those who never had to defend a prior bond but otherwise put up a good front. Thank God none of us has to judge hearts, but looking at these cases, one is forced to conclude that our modern Church is judging hearts – and without a whole lot of mercy thrown in.

This is rather the opposite of the way things were probably done in your mother’s day. The assumption back then was that annulment would be rare, and divorce was usually viewed as an affirmative separation of oneself from the Body of Christ. Today, the Pope (this was John Paul II) has wondered aloud why annulment is so common and chastity so rare. We now look at those divorced, fear to offer any judgment, and proclaim sin or lack thereof based exclusively on the procurement of a particular piece of paper – and usually without any concern for the heart-felt and body-expressed disposition of the divorced Catholics themselves. The result often is: annulment, you’re in, notwithstanding any real sin you might be living; and no annulment, you’re out, notwithstanding any real celibate chastity you may be enduring while pursuing a real annulment case. Some of the former judgments will no doubt be correct in God’s eyes, just as will some of the latter. But all will not always be correct – and we possess the means (namely sacramental confession, where the priest can actually determine the state of individual souls and can advise confidentially and properly) to do better.

But returning to the original point: One was never excommunicated for divorce, not even back in your mother’s day. One might excommunicate oneself, even today, for remarrying after divorce, but even this would depend upon the particulars. The Church today often slides too far to the side of laxity in actual practice. The Church in your mother’s day would often slide too far to the side of scrupulosity. But this is merely in practice. The Church, in its actual teachings on marriage, annulment, civil divorce, and remarriage (and contraception for that matter) has never erred – not today, not in your mother’s day, never. Indeed, if one pursues the root of the Church’s “life in the world,” as it were, all the way back to the time of Christ, we see two separate threads: the thread of actual doing, which is marred significantly by human error; and the thread of teaching, which is never so marred. Popes and bishops have wrongfully persecuted people in their actions (just consider, for example, the bitter example of Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais, who ignored the solemn prior judgment of his superiors in Poitier and pursued St. Joan of Arc until she burned). But no Pope – and no bishop, when teaching in communion with the full body of bishops – has ever misrepresented the Truth as it is.

The early Church figured it out pretty quick: sins (i.e. wrong actions) could be forgiven. Sinful people could go to heaven. But those who taught others that sin was good were committing an atrocity. This is because teaching others that evil is good has the potential to fool them into rejecting God forever. But those who merely do evil can be resisted – and often are resisted – by genuine saints. Thus, the Church has never emphasized orthopraxis (right action) as an absolute requirement. She has always exhorted the faithful to right action, but she has also recognized that the failing faithful can be forgiven. However, the Church has always insisted on orthodoxy (right thinking) in the articulation of her teaching. This is one reason why the infallibility of declarations on faith and morals extends only to the Pope and to the full body of all the world’s bishops (i.e. the Magisterium) – and even then, as Pope Benedict is quick to remind us in his introduction to Jesus of Nazareth – even then, certain formal requirements must be met. The Pope or Magisterium must be declaring on issues of faith and morals; the declaration must be made in the proper form; and the declarations must conform to the existing, publicly declared body of teaching on faith and morals as it already exists. In other words, not even the Pope or the Magisterium could ever invalidate the Sacred Tradition. Genuine doctrinal development always fits these multiple criteria. But schism and denial of eternal Truths never does.

Thus, officers of the Church in your mother’s day may well have declared that divorced Catholics in your mother’s day were excommunicated. (And back then, it is probably true that the penalty of excommunication prompted many Catholics to return to the fold, which is the end sought by every excommunication.) But if those excommunications failed to meet the strict requirements of Church teaching, then they were invalid. Only God can make these determinations. The purveyors of modern laxity are not God; they cannot make this judgment. (And incidentally, modern radical traditionalists – some of whom have used the arguments I make here to falsely claim that the papacy has been vacant since the time of Pius XII – cannot make this judgment.) Over-scrupulous clerics from yesteryear (of whom Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais is merely exemplary) also could not make this decision. That they often did is merely proof that we humans are a fallen species.

It should be noted that many today – and yesterday – have made hard judgments based exclusively on what they could know externally and from legitimate inquiry into the state of a particular soul – and have been wrong. This is not what I am referring to in this rather long-winded post. Humans, even priests and bishops, make mistakes, even in the good faith application of unchangeable doctrine. That is why God (and only God) is the final arbiter. In these questions where fault lies only in how we apply doctrine, forgiveness can and should come easily. And officers of the Church must exercise their office, knowing they will make mistakes. Doctrine, therefore, must always be unapologetically and truthfully declared. But the Truth must always be declared in Charity or else it is neither Charity nor Truth.

But though willful misapplication and genuine mistakes have always been present, the Church has never made even a single mistake in her teachings proper. In other words, nothing eternal has ever changed – not at least when we understand it within this larger context.

…it is your principal duty…to spell out clearly and completely the Church’s teaching on marriage. In the performance of your ministry you must be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church…And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience…and should speak as with one voice. Therefore We make Our own the anxious words of the great Apostle Paul and with all Our heart We renew Our appeal to you: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

…speak with full confidence, beloved sons, convinced that while the Holy Spirit of God is present to the magisterium proclaiming sound doctrine, He also illumines from within the hearts of the faithful and invites their assent. Teach married couples the necessary way of prayer and prepare them to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart…

And from para 30, addressed to Bishops:

…We invite all of you, We implore you, to give a lead to your priests who assist you in the sacred ministry, and to the faithful of your dioceses, and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time. As you well know, it calls for concerted pastoral action in every field…

We’ve kind of dropped the ball, to say the least.

HomeschoolNFPDad, thanks for your confirmation re Lucky. Back in my mother’s day, one WAS excommunicated for divorce, but I thought that had changed. A lonely life is preferable to ANY form of abuse, and I speak from the wrong end of that stick. As to your request (?)for guidance in discernment, it IS possible. I would recommend that you (and/or your wife) spend some time with the Blessed Sacrament, if possible (or, even before the Tabernacle) and really lay this out with God. He’s not trying to “keep you in the dark” but, as finite beings, sometimes we just can’t understand the only answer He has. From both faith and experience, I can assure you that He can and will make His will known if you keep opening yourself to Him. I’ll be praying for you.

This month, the EMHC is the proud mother of 7, with the youngest scheduled to be baptized next weekend (yippee!). She was asked if the three girls she had with her in the care center were all she had. When she said she actually had three boys and four girls, the **Catholic** resident she was speaking to said something like “you need to be fixed!”

When this young mother told me this later in the afternoon, she thanked me for my homily on HV and the timeliness of it, given such a rude response.

I was terribly saddened that this elder would be so wrongheaded, but was very encouraged by the young mother standing proud with her children.

From the Gospel this weekend:

The Son of Man will send his angels,
and they will collect out of his kingdom
all who cause others to sin and all evildoers.

I told my parishioners that I feared for my brother priests and even the bishops who have dissented from HV. I also told them that, as much as I love them, I am not willing to eternally suffer for their earthly comfort. So they were told – straight out: contraception is a grave sin – stop it.

My reason for writing this, as I am in my 25th year as a priest, is to say to my annonymous (baby) brother: keep on! There are many of us priests who will welcome you with open arms, and willing support. Yes, there are some brothers who are timid or even anti-… Church teaching, but there are many of us who desire the truth to be told. Don’t back away, my young brother. I was nearly stopped at my seminary 25 years ago as well. It is worth it to fight through, even if you have to fight through in silence.

Mary K.: If this seminarian wants to contact me, I would be willing to help with any moral support I can. I assume you can make that happen if he asks!?

To my brother(s) in the seminary: don’t think it is hopeless trying to make it through. It is not only the faithful laity who are waiting for your ordination, your future brothers await you as well. I pray you well and safe into the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Fr. Frank

It is my understanding that DIVORCE does not result in “rejection” (excommunication?), but that REMARRIAGE (without an annulment, which is more than possible under the circumstances) is the objectionable action.

Your understanding is, of course, correct. Indeed, in my limited experience within the Church, I have encountered at least as much faithfulness among divorced Catholics who have embraced the Lord even within their difficult circumstances, as among married Catholics. This would be a good place for any priest or deacon to begin in bringing the teaching of Humanae Vitae to the pulpit. Contraception and spousal abuse spring from the same root. Both require spouses to see each other as things, worthy only insomuch as one is useful to the other. One might concede that contraception is the result of a mutual mindset of use, wherein both spouses treat each other as things. But contraception can also be wielded as a weapon when one spouse wishes to follow the teaching of the Church and the other does not. Or indeed as a shield, to limit the direct consequences of a spouse keen on manipulation and control. Letting go of controlling the other always requires that one control himself first. Thus do contraception and spousal abuse go hand in glove, for the worse of all humanity.

Not surprisingly Humanae Vitase covers this as well:

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them (HV> 10).

For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order (HV> 21).

That Pope Paul should speak so knowingly when all seemingly rational forces of the world see things in a different light (should in no way surprise us, but it often does, and nowhere moreso than in the teaching of Humanae Vitae. To claim that Humanae Vitae merely addresses the issue of artificial birth control or even the more broadly stated issue of human sexuality is to demonstrate one’s ignorance of the encyclical. Humanae Vitae covers the entire reason of our existence in the world:

And We are convinced that this truly great work will bring blessings both on the world and on the Church. For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature (HV 31).

We are called to union with God, the only “true happiness” which can last more than a fleeting moment. We deserve to hear this message spoken often, for as St. Paul says, faith comes from hearing, and as Pope Paul says, “Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ; but this must always be joined with tolerance and charity, as Christ Himself showed in His conversations and dealings with men” (HV 29).

Pope Paul also says, “Husbands and wives, therefore, when deeply distressed by reason of the difficulties of their life, must find stamped in the heart and voice of their priest the likeness of the voice and the love of our Redeemer” (HV 29). So, returning to our priests and deacons, won’t you please heed the fullness of your calling? We need you, not because we are so great and profound in our knowledge. This knowledge, in all the history of humanity, has never surpassed that which St. Thomas Aquinas called “straw” — and none of us is worthy so much as to wash the Angelic Doctor’s feet. Rather, we need faithful priests and deacons to be beacons for us, to help us in our walk towards holiness. And we need you precisely because we recognize that we are broken, and the closer we come to holiness, the more apparent is the dim light of our own brokenness.

Won’t you help us?

May the Lord bless you and keep you; May the Lord let His face shine upon you; May the Lord look upon you kindly and bring you peace!

My response to Lucky involves her fear of rejection: “I still fear being rejected by my faith if and when I finally get out. How many women choose between being rejected by the church because of divorce and secretly using contracpetion and abortion to let some of the pressure off?” It is my understanding that DIVORCE does not result in “rejection” (excommunication?), but that REMARRIAGE (without an annulment, which is more than possible under the circumstances) is the objectionable action.

Finally, yes, you DO have to pray for him, BUT you don’t have to stay with him! Legally, he will be required to finacially care for you and your children until they are grown. Some government assistance should also be available. Between the two, it’ll be tough, but it’s better for your children to have a disadvantaged life than to grow up thinking this kind of treatment is NORMAL!

“Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.” Humane Vitae #13

The Church has also come to a better understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence, and wrote a profoundly beautiful letter that (granted) is only the beginning of the kind of help you rightly say is so desperately needed … but it is the beginning. Here is the link for this document: http://www.usccb.org/laity/help.shtml

Of particular help is the idea that women are not obliged to live under the same roof as her abuser. She is entitled — no, obligated — to find safety for herself and her children. Children are especially vulnerable to this kind of living situation — even if they are not themselves being abused, having to watch their mother endure this kind of treatment has long-term effects on their view of the world.

If you are not getting the help you need from your priest, I urge you to seek out a qualified Catholic counselor who can help you. “Pastoral Solutions” can counsel you by phone, if needed. God bless you, and may the Blessed Mother stay close to your side.