12-21-2018, 02:23 PM
I have been thinking about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; in particular, I have been thinking about the vows given by each spouse to the other. To be sure, one of these promises is the marital debt--which is to be understood as exclusionary. This, I assume, is why John Paul II instructs men and women who have left their spouses and entered into an illicit relationship with some other person to "live as brother and sister." Of course, by living as brother and sister, a spouse is not (in a sexual sense) abrogating their responsibility to their other spouse by engaging in adultery.
However, there are a number of other things which are promised between spouses (e.g.: to love, to honor, to protect, to obey, and to serve). It seems to me that a spouse who leaves his or her spouse and begins to live, even as brother and sister, with another would be failing to uphold their vows which do not relate to the marital act itself. Therefore, can living as brother and sister really be considered to be an acceptable response by those who have abandoned their spouses and fled to the arms of another? Should the Church's answer not be: you must return to your spouse at once, and live out your life according to the marital vow which you have taken?
Pope Pius XI writes in Cast Connubii that:
"This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof."
Can a man living as brother and sister with his "new spouse" really be said to be engaging in the "mutual molding" with his wife? Can his wife be said to be engaging in the "blending of life as a whole and mutual interchange and sharing" with her husband? I cannot fathom how living as brother and sister with another person makes the situation any better.
I appreciate that this can be difficult, as there are often extenuating circumstances. But the age-old tradition of the Church is that no circumstances can put asunder that which God has joined together. That is to say that there are no circumstances (including the siring of children with the object of adultery) which would justify the continuation of any kind of marriage-like relationship between the two, or the continued ignorance of one's own spousal responsibility. Therefore I ask: how can the advice to live as brother and sister be given in good conscience by anyone, much less the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church? Furthermore, how can it be that this has passed the muster of moral and pastoral theologian? Finally, I ask whether or not I am too wide of the mark by saying that this capitulation represents the first capitulation which, inevitably, has led to the current disaster pertaining to some among the episcopate claiming that Holy Communion should be administered to those who are divorced and remarried?
However, there are a number of other things which are promised between spouses (e.g.: to love, to honor, to protect, to obey, and to serve). It seems to me that a spouse who leaves his or her spouse and begins to live, even as brother and sister, with another would be failing to uphold their vows which do not relate to the marital act itself. Therefore, can living as brother and sister really be considered to be an acceptable response by those who have abandoned their spouses and fled to the arms of another? Should the Church's answer not be: you must return to your spouse at once, and live out your life according to the marital vow which you have taken?
Pope Pius XI writes in Cast Connubii that:
"This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof."
Can a man living as brother and sister with his "new spouse" really be said to be engaging in the "mutual molding" with his wife? Can his wife be said to be engaging in the "blending of life as a whole and mutual interchange and sharing" with her husband? I cannot fathom how living as brother and sister with another person makes the situation any better.
I appreciate that this can be difficult, as there are often extenuating circumstances. But the age-old tradition of the Church is that no circumstances can put asunder that which God has joined together. That is to say that there are no circumstances (including the siring of children with the object of adultery) which would justify the continuation of any kind of marriage-like relationship between the two, or the continued ignorance of one's own spousal responsibility. Therefore I ask: how can the advice to live as brother and sister be given in good conscience by anyone, much less the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church? Furthermore, how can it be that this has passed the muster of moral and pastoral theologian? Finally, I ask whether or not I am too wide of the mark by saying that this capitulation represents the first capitulation which, inevitably, has led to the current disaster pertaining to some among the episcopate claiming that Holy Communion should be administered to those who are divorced and remarried?