Invalidly married Catholics : your attitude toward them


AQc/een's'Work
Pamphlet



^HDigitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/invalidlymarriedOOherb



Invalidly Married Catholics

Your Attitude Toward Them

by

WINFRID HERBST, S. D. S.

THE QUEEN'S WORK
3115 South Grand Blvd.

St. Louis 18, Missouri



Imprimi potest:

Jerome Jacobs, S. D. S.

Provincial

Imprimatur

:

Joseph E. Eitter

Archbishop of St. Louis

May 18, 1954

Any financial profit made by the
Central Office of the Sodality of Our
Lady will be used for the promotion
of the Sodality and the cause of
Catholic Action.

Copyright 1954

THE QUEEN’S WORK

Dsgefdjf&tf



INVALIDLY MARRIED CATHOLICS

YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THEM
By Winfrid Herbst, S. D. S.

T
he lady waiting in the rectory for
Father Walsh was on the tremulous brink

of tears. Every few seconds she lifted a
tiny lace handkerchief to her eyes as if the
flood were imminent and unavoidable.

But the tears wouldn’t come, and the
hanky returned each time to its place on
her lap. In the intervals between these
crises, she contented herself with long, wor-
ried sighs, and impatient glances at the door.

When the priest finally entered the room,
she brushed aside his affectionate greeting
and went straight to the heart of her
distress.

“Father, it was you that married them.
How can Harry be right? You told us
yourself that the Church had given them
permission.”

Startled by this confused and emotional
opening, the priest blinked in surprise. She
was an old friend of his, an active parish-
ioner for many years, and he knew from
her expression that she must be deeply
troubled.

“I’m lost already,” he said kindly and
motioned her back to her chair. “Why don’t
you and I have a little chat and straighten
things out.”

Tw© Daughters

She relaxed slightly then, and managed
an abashed smile.

3



Father Walsh took advantage of it to
steer the conversation back to more pleasant
things while she regained control of herself.

After they had talked for awhile about
the old days in the parish, and some of the
color had returned to her face, he cautiously
ventured back to the purpose of her visit.

It was about her daughters, she said,
suddenly tense again. Father Walsh remem-
bered Ann and Marilyn, didn’t he?

The priest nodded with a smile. He did
indeed remember them. How could he forget
them? Together they constituted one of the
most unusual cases he had come across in
all his years in the parish.

Ann and Marilyn were born within a
year of each other, he remembered, and
grew up like two echoes of the same
thought.

When he baptized the second daughter,
Father Walsh had joked that if she had been
punctual, the family might have had twins.
The girls dressed alike, looked alike, and
when Ann fell in love with an unbaptized
boy, Marilyn soon followed by falling in
love with his brother.

They came to Father Walsh, two fright-
ened young women who had heedlessly
followed their emotions into a perilous love
and now wanted the blessings of the Church
on their marriages.

He had explained carefully to them that
there was an impediment to their marriage
to the brothers, and that the impediment
was called disparity of worship. They could
not, under pain of nullity, marry young men
who were not baptized.

4



A Dispensation

There was just one thing* they could do,
he said. They might request a dispensation
from the impediment, a relaxation of the
law in their particular case.

Father Walsh had warned them that the
dispensation is granted only when there are
truly grave reasons. He pointed out that
the Bishop is the person who has power in
the matter.

Excited and eager to try any possibility
of approval, the girls had applied for the
dispensation immediately.

Months of anxious waiting had passed,
as hard in a way for Father Walsh as for
the girls, who plagued him daily with
requests for news.

At last the permission had been secured,
but only after the most solemn promises
had been freely given by their spouses.

Both men had agreed to permit the girls
the unhampered exercise of their religion,
and both promised that any children of
their unions would be baptized and reared
in the Catholic faith. In addition Father
Walsh had informed the girls that it was
their duty to endeavor to bring about the
conversion of their husbands.

That had all happened years ago, the
priest recalled. The girls had families of
their own now. Only a few months before
Ann had given birth to her fourth child, a
boy, and Father Walsh had baptized him.

Brother Harry

The priest looked thoughtfully at his
visitor. He wondered who had upset her,
and started the train of painful doubts
about her daughters’ marriages.

5



“You remember my brother Harry, don’t
you, Father?” she asked.

As she worked her way back to the sub-
ject of her concern, she became agitated
again, and the lace handkerchief started
its periodic visits to the eyes.

“I haven’t seen Harry for years,” she
said in a choked voice, “but he was in town
for two hours this afternoon on a business
trip, and he stopped by the house for a
visit.”

Father Walsh remembered Harry all
right, and he was beginning to understand
why the lady was emotionally overwrought.
“Harry always was very blunt,” she said.

“He had a sharp way of saying things even
as a child. And this afternoon he came
right out and told me that my daughters
were living in sin, and that my grand-
children were illegitimate.”

Her voice was beginning to quaver, and
she just barely got the remaining words
out:

“He said that the girls aren’t validly
married in the eyes of the Church.”

She broke down then, and the tears came
burning to her eyes. She wept in an agony
of doubt and fear.

The priest let her claim the full satisfac-
tion that a good cry, too long refused, gives
to a woman. When the last shaking sob
had subsided, he spoke.

“To say that Harry made a rash state-
ment would be putting it too mildly,” he
said. “Don’t you recall that I, as a priest
of God, was a witness to the ceremonies?
That alone should tell you that the Church
considers your daughters validly married.”

6



He went on to explain, step by step, the
authority by which the dispensation had
been granted. Her features softened and
glowed with understanding and relief, and
by the time he had finished, she was smiling
broadly.

“Harry may think he knows what he’s
talking about,” the priest smiled, “but when
it comes to a choice between him and the
Church, I’ll stick with the Church every
time.”

The Timid Majority

As for brother Harry, he proceeded stead-
fastly on his way, smugly convinced that
he had met evil on its own field and refused
to compromise with it.

The fact that there was a large area of
disagreement between him and the Church
did not disturb him, because he was not
aware of it.

Harry had a clear and unmistakable
attitude toward invalidly married Catholics.
He would not tolerate such people for a
moment. The only trouble was that Harry
didn’t know who was validly married, and
who was not.
He was, to be sure, a most unusual per-

son. We do not meet his type every day.
Most people, in fact, are so far removed
from his particular brand of arrogance that
they border on the opposite extreme.

The majority of us habitually allow our
humility to obscure our sense of right and
wrong.

We would not dream of pointing out to
another that he is about to commit a sin.
Like the stock comedian of the stage, we
endure all kinds of injustices to satisfy our

7



timidity. Hit us with custard pies and pour
buckets of water on us, but please don’t
ask us to speak our minds!

An artificial veneer of politeness covers
our intuitive common sense. Rather than
offend, we will permit the other fellow to
accomplish all kinds of evil.

If another human is about to jump off a
ten-story building, we shout and exhort.
But let the same fellow threaten to commit
suicide morally, and we stand placidly by,
content to watch.

Catholic's Dilemma

The Catholic in particular seems to be a
victim of this psychology of restraint. His
faith gives him the answers to the moral
problems of life. From his catechism he
learns early what is demanded by the
Creator.

And when he sees in the world around
him actions that are obviously wrong and
sinful, he feels the compulsion to say that
they are wrong. And yet, because he dis-
likes “butting in,” or hurting another’s
feelings, he refrains from comment.

His conscience observes the facts and
forms a judgment. But he is reluctant to
be considered a busybody, so, like the
ostrich, he buries his head in the sands of
indifference.

Nowhere in the arena of modern civiliza-
tion does this inner conflict occur as fre-

quently or as agonizingly as in the question

of marriage.

By the very composition of our society,
the Catholic is exposed every day to persons
who possess little if any conception of the
Church’s attitude toward the marriage of

her children.

8



What is more damaging is the fact that
some Catholics themselves do not under-
stand the laws of their faith that impede
valid union with persons of another religion,
or with pagans.

Thus, when the intelligent Catholic ob-
serves that one of his friends has foolishly
become entangled in a romance that his
faith will not countenance, he wants to
shout out for all to hear, “Watch out there!
You’re on dangerous ground.”

This desire to warn is not prompted by
mere “nosiness.” We are not referring to
the casual predictions that accompany every
marriage: “They’ll never make a go of it.”
“John just isn’t the right guy for her.” “I
hope they’ll be happy, but they sure have
different dispositions.”

The problem runs much deeper than any
conflict in personality or manners or
economic background. Each of these factors
will unquestionably influence the happiness
of the marriage. It may take months before
the necessary compromises and adjustments
are made by each party.
But what we refer to here is a factor

which cannot be compromised by the Cath-
olic: the supreme and overriding impor-
tance of his faith.

Two Impulses

And that is why the parent, watching his
son or daughter leave on a date with a non-
Catholic, whispers the fervent prayer that
the child will not throw away his precious
inheritance of faith.

And that is why the lifelong friend
watches with alarm when a Catholic chum
starts courting a divorcee.

9



At this point, the two impulses that we
have mentioned begin to bump heads. The
mother longs to caution her daughter about
becoming serious about the Baptist boy who
lives next door, but she fears that chilling
rebuke of youth: “I can run my own life.”
The Catholic tries to find the words with

which to tell his friend that he shouldn’t be
dating a girl who is already married, but
somehow he doesn’t get around to it.

Then, in the hesitancy and fumbling,
while worlds are left unspoken that should
be thundered, the tragedy happens.

The daughter runs away to marry the
Baptist before a justice of the peace. The
close friend becomes engaged to the
divorcee.

Indecisive conduct has lost the day. But
now another problem, as deadly and dis-
turbing as the first, arises.

What Attitude?

What is the attitude which we should
have toward these relatives and friends
who, though Catholic, are invalidly mar-
ried in the eyes of the Church? How must
the conscientious Catholic respond to such
challenges?

Should we snub them, refuse to visit or
help them, ostracize them? But then what
happens to God’s admonition that we love
our neighbor?

Instead, perhaps, should we pretend that
nothing is amiss, that the invalid marriage
is really none of our business, that we do
not consider it as a bar to friendship? But
who will dare contend that a Catholic can
be indifferent to evil?

10



Between these two poles of complete
severance of the relationship and gross
indifference to the wrong, lies an immense
range of action (and reaction) which is
open to the Catholic.

In attempting to shape his attitude
properly, he finds himself swayed by power-
ful affections. Nobody claims that it is easy
to condemn one’s own flesh, or repudiate a
friendship that may have started in the
sixth grade.

Unfortunately, such condemnation and
repudiation is sometimes required.

To discover the sound basis of the true
Catholic attitude toward the invalidly mar-
ried, we think it advisable to put the prob-
lem in concrete terms, and deal with specific
cases. And for clarity and convenience, we’ll
first consider situations that are not as

personal or compelling as the blood relation-
ship, and then move on to more intricate
and delicate problems.

Wedding Gifts

The most common test of our attitude
toward invalidly married Catholics involves
habit and custom, the things that we
normally do or are expected to do.

So let us suppose that you know a Cath-
olic woman who, against every counsel and
petition of her parents, has just married a
non-Catholic before a minister. You have
known her for years and have a great liking
for her.

You had always planned to give her an
expensive gift when she married, as a token
of your fondness for her. When the wedding
was announced, you were naturally shocked
that she had made such a mistake.

11



Now you are faced squarely with the
decision whether or not you can give her
any present at all. You realize that there
is a danger of scandal involved, and yet
your natural fondness for her remains.
A moment’s thought on the matter, how-

ever, should tell you that such a wedding
present, if it in any way manifests approval
of her conduct, is a species of cooperation
in evil, more or less grave according to the
circumstances. It is unthinkable that a good
Catholic should wish to give a token of
congratulation (which is what a wedding
present represents) to one who has openly
flouted the laws of the Church and is living
under sentence of excommunication.

Of course, the gift would not be formal
cooperation in the evil, that in which the
sin itself is willed. You are not the person
who has married in defiance of Church law.
But is it not material cooperation?

Material cooperation is that which takes
place when a person participates in a
wicked deed without the evil intention of
the principal. Such cooperation is permitted
only when the act cooperated in is in itself
good, or at least objectively indifferent, and
when it is dictated by a just cause, e. g.,
great utility, necessity, avoidance of serious

inconvenience. All of these causes are

difficult to imagine in this situation.

When you feel the social pressure in an
affair like this, and know that you are
expected to acknowledge the wedding an-
nouncement with a gift, remember this: A
Catholic must have the courage of his con-
victions and stand resolutely on the side of
God and His holy Church. It is all very
well to be tolerant and broadminded, but

we must avoid that false tolerance which
12



is synonymous with indifference to error.
It is a Christian duty to pity the erring and
the sinful and treat them charitably, yes;
but it is equally a Christian duty to hate
and combat error and sin.

You would not send a congratulatory
note to a friend who has just lost a leg or
an arm in an accident.
Why, then, should you congratulate a

friend who has lost something infinitely
more precious: her faith.

The Wedding Party

Sending a wedding present would nor-
mally entail a certain amount of scandal,
but it is relatively small when compared
with the harm that results from other, more
apparent approvals of such a marriage.

On those infrequent and truly awful
occasions when a Catholic loses his faith
and joins another religion in order to marry
a person of that denomination, he may ask
some of his Catholic friends to be in his
wedding party.

They are then confronted with a personal
request that would ordinarily be regarded
as a great testimonial of intimacy and
friendship. But, under the circumstances,
can they accede to such a request?

First of all, we should understand that
a fallen-away Catholie can come under any
of three categories. He may be a heretic

,

who, having been baptized, retains the name
of a Christian but obstinately denies or
doubts some of the truths that must be
believed by divine or Catholic faith. He
may be an apostate, who has given up the
Christian faith entirely and fallen away
from it. Or he may be a schismatic, who

13



refuses to obey the Soverign Pontiff or to
live in union with those who submit to him.

All apostates from the Christian faith
and all heretics and schismatics incur
excommunication ipso facto; and if apos-
tates, heretics, or schismatics have joined
a non-Catholic sect, or publicly professed
themselves members thereof, they are by
this very fact (ipso facto) infamous.

In other words, if a Catholic were to
assist in a wedding of a friend who has
abandoned the faith and become a Baptist,
for example, he would actually be condoning
the folly of an excommunicated person.

Degrees of Scandal

The scandal inherent in such a course of
action is even graver, and the prohibition
more serious, than in other types of invalid
marriages.

Thus, for example, we know that a Cath-
olic is not permitted to attend the attempted
remarriage of a divorced person, because
such a union is invalid in the eyes of God.

And a Catholic may not attend or assist
in a mixed marriage in a Protestant church
because such conduct violates a serious
Church law that forbids mixed marriage
without dispensation.

Due to extraordinary circumstances, a
Catholic may be allowed by his Bishop to
act as a best man or as bridesmaid at a
Protestant church wedding of two born
Protestants, provided there is an extremely
good reason. An example of such a reason
might be that a convert-Catholic wishes to
stand up for the marriage of a Protestant
brother or sister. But even in such a case,
there is a likelihood that in many areas such

14



a convert-Catholic would be forbidden by
the Bishop to act in that capacity, as being
an implicit approval of a Protestant sect.
It is up to the Bishop in the particular area
to decide, and his permission must be ob-
tained. The element of sufficient reason and
scandal is local and changing, so it is
impossible to state absolutely whether or
not such permission would be granted.

But in the case immediately at hand, the
groom has not only given up his faith, he
has joined another religion.

Since a Catholic cannot even attend the
attempted marriage of a divorced person,
or a mixed marriage in a Protestant church,
how obvious it should be that a Catholic
can under no circumstances participate in
a ceremony which involves the excom-
municated.

Perhaps parents or near relatives of such
a person will urge the Catholic friend that
by attending such a “marriage” they at
least retain the good will of the rash young
man. The argument may be advanced that
later, by means of this good will, there will
be a better chance of getting the person to
turn away from the sinful cohabitation.
But the scandal given would be too grave.

Moreover, there is just as great a prob-
ability that a severe attitude on the part of
parents or relatives will open the eyes of
the misguided.

Visits

But let us suppose the thing has been
done—so now what?
The parents and relatives may, and indeed

even should, show the poor sinner that he
has all their love and sympathy, but they

15



should also show that they are unchanged
in their condemnation of his conduct.

It would be permissible to invite him to
visit them

;
but visits from the couple

together should be definitely disapproved,
or at the most allowed only rarely, if at all.
It is permissible, however, to have friendly
contacts with the couple for the sole purpose
of ultimately influencing them to do what
is right.

The point at issue here touches upon one
of the most difficult problems in modern
American life, since there are now hundreds
of thousands of persons in this country who
have been divorced and “remarried,” even
some who call themselves Catholics, whose
union is not a genuine marriage. Associa-
tion with such persons cannot be entirely
avoided; and yet it is easy to give scandal
by such association, since by freely asso-
ciating with such persons Catholics are
likely to give the impression that they re-
gard the conjugal life of the couples in
question as perfectly lawful, or as only

slightly culpable. Generally speaking, purely

business relations with divorced persons are
permissible, whereas purely social relations
with a couple, one or each of whom is
known to have a previous spouse still living,
should be avoided by Catholics or at least
reduced to a minimum.

This same rule of conduct applies to our
relationships with persons who, though not
divorced, have contracted invalid marriages.

We may associate with them in a civic
way, provided such association does not
entail real danger of perversion and is not
an approval of their error. But we must
not act deceitfully toward them, by pretend-
ing that we consider them validly married.

16



Once again we are called upon to remember
that practical civic toleration is not the
same as indifference to error. We can suffer
patiently with a disease without ever ignor-
ing it or forgetting its danger.

Love Sinner, Hate Sin

Practical civic toleration consists in the

personal esteem and love which we are
bound to show toward the erring person,
even though we condemn or combat his
error; for the Christian ideal of charity is

to love the neighbor for the sake of God.
The good faith of the erring must, as a rule,
be presumed until the contrary is estab-
lished. But even in the extremest cases,
Christian charity must never be wounded,
since the final judgment on the individual
rests with Him who “searches the heart and
the reins.”

We are not to confuse sin and error with
the persons who sin and err.
Ordinary association with these persons,

under the conditions mentioned, may offer
opportunities for prudent fraternal correc-
tion, and may induce these misguided souls
to see the error of their ways and to rectify
them.

Often, in the hearts of such wayward
Catholics, a critical struggle is taking place
—the gentle urge of Christ against the
rebellious will or a mind clouded by passion.
By our charity and prayers we may help
turn the battle in favor of the Savior.

In his famous Encyclical Letter Arcanum
Divinae Sapientiae, on Christian marriage,
Pope Leo XIII urges us to this very task
with these words: “Let your utmost care
be exercised in bringing such persons back

17



to their duty
; and, both by your own efforts

and by those of good men who will consent
to help you, strive by every means that they
may see how wrongly they have acted; that
they may do penance

;
and that they may be

induced to enter into a lawful marriage
according to the Catholic rite.”

Our attitude toward the invalidly mar-
ried, then, is built on two separate and yet
related propositions.

First, we in no way approve of the sinful
act by which the Catholic has insulted his
faith and his Savior. We do not recognize
a “marriage” nor do we minimize the extent
of the wrong.

But, secondly, we have a deep charity
toward the sinner.

As St. Augustine says, we bear patiently
with the sinner, not that we may love sin
in him but that we may combat sin because
of him. We have charity toward the in-
validly married, not because he is a sinner
but because he is a man. In a similar way,
if we love the sick we combat the fever;
for if we spare the fever, we do not love
the sick.

Knowing the Law

But there is another aspect of this em-
inently practical question as to how we
should act toward the invalidly married
Catholic. We must know who is and who is
not validly married.

Plainly, we cannot hope to be acting in
conformity with the spirit and wishes of the
Church if we do not understand Her law.
We have already mentioned the two

extremes of error into which anyone of us
may fall.

18



On the one hand, we may adopt a false
and listless tolerance, which is in effect
indifference to evil.

On the other, we may think ourselves
bigger than the Church, and as a conse-
quence sin against charity.

An example of the latter extreme was
brother Harry of our opening paragraphs.
He thoughtlessly and unjustly accused his
nieces of sin when in fact they were
innocent.

Harry was not consciously telling a false-
hood when he said their marriages were
invalid. As a matter of fact, he thought it
was his duty to condemn them.

But because of ignorance and com-
placency, he did not know what he was
talking about. And as a result he stigma-
tized as public sinners two women who were
leading good Catholic lives.

If we desire, therefore, to form a correct
attitude toward those who marry outside
the Church, we must understand the funda-
mentals of Church law on the subject.

That does not mean that each and every
Catholic must have the detailed knowledge
of a theologian in order to tell who is and
who is not validly married.

Few of us would claim to be expert
mathematicians, and yet we know what
change to expect from a dollar when we
make a quarter purchase.

We do not have to possess the lengthy
training of a priest to understand that a
marriage between two baptized persons is
a sacrament.

Nor need we be a genius to grasp the
basic fact that a marriage between two

19



infidels (two unbaptized persons) is not a
sacrament.

A marriage between a baptized person
and an infidel cannot be a sacrament for
the infidel for the simple reason that he is
incapable of receiving any sacrament before
Baptism.

Theologians are not agreed as to whether
the marriage can be a sacrament for the
baptized party in the case where the other
party is an infidel. A few theologians say
that the marriage is a sacrament for the
baptized party

;
but most of them teach that

it is not a sacrament for the baptized
party either.

For the laity it is sufficient to know what
Father Connell's The New Baltimore Cate-
chism says about this matter: “The mar-
riage of an unbaptized person, either with a
baptized person or with another unbaptized
person, is a sacred contract and a real
marriage, provided it is not rendered null

and void by some law of God or of the
Church; but it is not a sacrament, because
a person must receive Baptism before he
can receive any other sacrament.”

Aware of this, the intelligent Catholic
realizes that there is a real marriage in
such a union. His attitude toward the man
and wife is the same as the Church’s: he
rejoices with them in the sacredness of
their contract.

Mixed Marriages

Similarly, every informed Catholic ac-
knowledges the validity of a marriage
between a Catholic and a person of another
religion provided a dispensation has been
granted.

20



Here again, our attitude is no broader
nor narrower than the teachings of Holy
Mother Church, who, though she warns
constantly against the dangers arising from
such a marriage, nevertheless will sanctify
such union when certain conditions are met.

It will perhaps be beneficial to repeat
those conditions.

The Church, in order to insure respect for
the divine law, demands that the non-Cath-
olic party shall promise to remove all danger
of perversion of the Catholic party, and to
permit the Catholic the free exercise of his
or her religion; and both of the contracting
parties must promise to have all their
children baptized and brought up in the
Catholic faith. In addition the Catholic

party must know that it is his duty to
endeavor, prudently, to bring about the
conversion of his partner.

These conditions are serious ones, and
not to be taken lightly by either party. They
mirror the Church’s genuine concern over
the dangers of mixed marriages.

That concern was emphasized by Pope
Leo XIII in his famous Encyclical Letter
on Christian marriage, in these words:

“Care also must be taken that they do
not easily enter into marriage with those
who are not Catholics; for when minds do
not agree as to the observances of religion,
it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement
in other things. Other reasons also proving
that persons should turn with dread from
such marriages are chiefly these: that they
give occasion to forbidden association and
communion in religious matters; endanger
the faith of the Catholic partner; are a
hindrance to the proper education of the

21



children; and often lead to a mixing up of
truth and falsehood, and to the belief that
all religions are equally good.”

In this connection it is important to bear
in mind that the parties to a mixed mar-
riage may not, either before or after the
celebration of the marriage in the Church,
apply also, either in person or by proxy, to
a non-Catholic minister, in order to express
or renew matrimonial consent.

This species of “tolerance,” which per-
mits the marriage ceremony to be performed
first in the Catholic church and later in
some other religion, makes a farce of the
faith and is in effect a denial of its divine
origin.

The Children

One of the most important conditions
for a dispensation to a mixed marriage is
the one relating to children.

This insistence of the Church upon the
Catholic education of the offspring reflects
its eternal concern for the young.

The Church recognizes that the peril of
the invalidly married is not only to them-
selves, but also to their children. As in
other fields of human conduct, it is not just
the person who transgresses or commits the
evil who suffers, but the innocent and
defenseless as well.

Adam sinned, and lost for all mankind
the integrity and pristine purity with which
God had created the original man.
A Catholic enters an invalid marriage,

and loses not only the atmosphere of grace
which he needs to live in Christ, but also
the rich and nourishing Catholic atmosphere
which his children will need to grow as sons
and daughters of the Savior.

22



Who is more pathetic than the child of
an invalid marriage, deprived as he is of
the great and necessary truths of Cathol-
icism, not through his own fault but
through the passion or intemperance of his
parent?

What can such a child expect in the way
of guidance from a home whose very foun-
dation rests on error and sin?

It is often with the birth of their children
that invalidly married Catholics appreciate
the enormity of their mistake. Perhaps by
this time they have already attempted to
have their marriage rectified, and to reclaim
the golden gift of their faith. But even if
they are not as yet willing to conform to the
Divine Rule of the Church, they frequently
wish to have their children baptized as
Catholics.

Despite the persistence in their error, may
they present their children for Baptism?

Since there may be one hundred and one
different categories of cases that may lie
between the good practicing Catholic and
the complete apostate, we shall here con-
sider only two broad categories as regards
Baptism

:

1. Catholics. Canon Law says that their
children are to be baptized as soon as
possible.

2. Apostates (those who have entirely
given up the Christian faith). Canon Law
says that their children may generally be
baptized at the request of at least one
parent, “provided the Catholic upbringing
of the child is reasonably safeguarded.”

The condition just given naturally applies
not only to class 2 but also to class 1 and
to all the categories in between. (Church

23



Law presumes that the children of Catholics
will be brought up as Catholics).

Of course, if the child is in danger of
death neither the above conditions nor the
consent of the parents is necessary.

Reasonable Grounds

The condition, quoted from Canon Law
above, means at least that there must be
reasonable grounds for believing that the
child will be brought up with a knowledge
of the principal truths of Catholic faith
and moral teaching.

Hence the test to be applied to all these
cases is: “Are there reasonable grounds
for believing that the child will be brought
up as a Catholic?”

If the answer to this test question is
“Yes” and if the parents or guardians, or
at least one of them, consent to the Baptism,
the child may be lawfully baptized in the
Church.

If the answer is “Yes,” the fact that the
parents are this and that, or so and so,
makes no difference. In other words, refusal
of Baptism may not be used as a club over
the heads of the parents or as a weapon
with which to spur them on to a better
observance of their religious duties or with
which to punish them for infringements of
Canon Law. There are other legal means
and punishments for that purpose. Refusal
of Baptism is not one of them.
The mother is especially to be taken into

consideration. Even if the father is an
unbeliever or a heretic or an apostate, the
mother will generally provide for the child’s
Catholic upbringing and education. Hence
it is usually lawful to baptize a child whose

24



mother is Catholic and wants the child
baptized; for in such a case there is prob-
ably hope of a Catholic education. Naturally
all the particular circumstances of each
case must be taken into consideration.

Catholic Divorce?

We have been stressing the classes of
persons whom Catholics may not marry
without dispensation, and the ruinous re-
sults to the children of the invalidly
married.

Now let us take a look at an entirely dif-
ferent question, one that does not directly
involve an invalid marriage, but which may
be the cause of scandal.

What if a perfectly sound and valid
Catholic marriage has collapsed?

The distraught wife accuses her husband
of infidelity, and says that it is impossible
to live with him any longer.

The husband in turn alleges that she has
been cruel to him, henpecked him at every
opportunity, and made life a torment.

Neither party believes that it is possible
to live together as man and wife. They both
wish to get a civil divorce.

What is the law governing such ques-
tions? May a Catholic under any circum-
stances obtain a civil divorce?

First of all, let us remember that a valid
Catholic marriage is never dissolvable. The
bond which two people forge in the holy
presence of almighty God is stronger than
any device or machine of puny man. It can
never be broken, or sundered.

Therefore, even if a Catholic should desire
just a nominal civil and legal breaking of
that bond, it is a serious matter.

25



Catholics must never enter civil suit for
divorce without permision from their Bishop.
Whether they go to the civil courts for a
decree of separation or for a divorce, per-
mission must first be obtained from the
Bishop.

Civil Effects Only

When in an extreme case, one in which
there are peculiar circumstances that seem
to demand suit for separation or divorce in
the civil courts, Catholics wish to have
recourse to this action, they should know
full well that only civil effects are intended
and that, though legally separated, they
are still married and cannot contract an-
other marriage during the lifetime of one
of the partners.

Hence the matter must be presented to
the Bishop for serious deliberation. If he
finds that permission may be granted, he
will see to it that the affair be explained
in such manner as to obviate scandal and
that the parties concerned be instructed as
to their married status in the eyes of the
Church.

If the Catholic takes any such action
without the above-mentioned permission, he
will, in many of the dioceses of the United
States commit a mortal sin reserved to the
Bishop. By that we mean that faculties to
absolve him from that sin must be obtained
from the Bishop, except in the cases where
canon 900 of the Church law grants confes-
sors faculties to absolve from reserved sins
and where canon 899 gives pastors during
the whole of Easter time and missionaries
during the time of a mission the same
faculties.

26



Even if the Catholic in question should
get absolution from that reserved sin, he
must still obtain permission from the Bishop
if he desires to remain apart from his
spouse. The only exception to this require-
ment of permission is adultery. And even in
case of adultery, which is the lone exception
where the husband may leave the wife (or
vice versa) without permission, in actual
practice the Bishop’s permission should be
sought. The reason for this is that the
judgment of a third person seems almost
essential to a good conscience in the matter.

What About Nullity?

We have mentioned previously that for a
Catholic to know whether a particular
marriage is valid or not, he must know
something of Church law. But unfor-
tunately, even Catholics who have acquired
a passable knowledge in such law are fre-
quently tripped up on a relatively simple
adjunct of it.

We refer to the declaration of nullity.
Many times the Catholic will be exposed

to the ridiculous and groundless charge that
his Church, while refusing to recognize
divorce, has its own device for achieving the
same ends. As if in proof of this erroneous
statement, the antagonist will then point
out someone he knows who has had a mar-
riage annulled.

This obvious confusion between divorce
and the declaration of nullity is something
no good Catholic should be guilty of.

When we speak of divorce, we mean that
two people formerly joined have been
severed.

When we speak of a declaration of nul-
27



lity, we mean that there never did exist a
valid joining of the two people.

Christ has told us that man can never
separate those whom God has joined to-
gether. In other words, there can be no
divorce.

But nullity is the express declaration that
the persons were never joined by God. In
other words, there never was a marriage.

The Church takes every precaution before
the ceremony to assure a valid union, with
definite investigation as to the possibility
of impediments which might make the
marriage invalid.

Once the marriage vows have been ex-
changed in the proper manner, before a
duly authorized priest and two witnesses,
any future doubt as to the validity of the
marriage is governed by the key presump-
tion that the marriage is to be upheld as
valid until the contrary is proved.

Once the parties have pledged and prom-
ised the all-important “I do” the internal
consent is presumed to match the consent
to marriage given externally at the time of
the wedding ceremony.

These strong presumptions in favor of
the validity of marriage can be overcome.
They may give way before the weight of
clear and incontestable proof of the pres-
ence of some invalidating impediment at the
time of the marriage ceremony, but such
evidence and proof is possible so rarely,
that it is near-insanity for any person to
enter a hasty marriage in the hope of a
declaration of nullity if they cannot “make
a go of it.”

28



The Cornerstone

The Church is the guardian of the dignity
and sanctity of marriage and marriage is
the very cornerstone of the solidity of the
family and of society. As a guiding prin-
ciple, therefore, the Church would rather
tolerate the continued union of those who
may be living in an invalid marriage (but
unable to prove it), than risk the violation
of God’s laws and risk the welfare of family
and society by declaring a marriage invalid
without clear and convincing proof of
invalidity.

This principle is enshrined in the law of
of the Church on marriage. It is only logical
that the individual good of the two persons
involved in a doubtful marriage must be
considered of secondary importance. The
common good—the welfare of family and
society—is of primary importance.
There are matrimonial tribunals through-

out the Catholic world, set up by Church
law to consider possible invalid marriages
according to very exacting rules and regula-
tions. The principle mentioned above re-
quires that the rules be exacting—far more
exacting than any procedure in civil courts
anywhere. The Reverend Judges appointed
to each case may decide in favor of the
invalidity of the marriage only if the
evidence in the case (documents, witnesses,
etc.) furnishes moral certitude that the
marriage was invalid from the beginning.
These tribunals are not clinics for unhappy
marriages where the judges are bound to
adjust unfortunate situations at any cost,
but tribunals of justice, dedicated to main-
tain the dignity and sanctity of the sacra-
ment of marriage.

29



An Example

Let us say that a woman contends that
her marriage was invalid because her
husband married her with a clear and
positive intention contrary to the per-
manency of marriage. In other words, in
the Hollywood style, he reserved the right
to leave her and marry another whenever
he tired of her. This would not be marriage
as established by Christ, but a mere union
of legal concubinage.

Imagine the difficulty, however, of pro-
ducing witnesses who heard him express
such evil intentions before marriage; people
just don’t go around carrying their evil
intents on their coat sleeves.

If clear and incontestable evidence cannot
be furnished, the marriage must stand as
valid.

But let us assume that elements of proof
are furnished, and that the case is accepted
by a marriage tribunal of the Church.

Considering the time-consuming tasks of
gathering the documents and evidence, of
hearing the parties and witnesses before the
tribunal, of preparing the lengthy briefs
both for and against the invalidity of the
marriage, etc., it is easy to understand why
the Church allows a period of two years for
the consideration and decision of the case.

If this first tribunal of three Reverend
Judges decides that the marriage is invalid,
the decision cannot be considered as final
until the case is sent to an appeal-tribunal
and again decided in favor of the invalidity
of the marriage.

If the appeal-tribunal decides that the

marriage is valid, the case must go to the
30



high tribunal of appeal in Eome known as
the Sacred Roman Rota.
As an indication of the rarity of decisions

in favor of the invalidity of marriages, it

might suffice to note that the Sacred Roman
Rota considered 148 marriage cases in 1950,
and that decisions in favor of invalidity
were handed down in only 39 of these cases.

These cases were referred to the Sacred
Roman Rota from tribunals throughout the
Catholic world, and the percentage of dec-
larations of nullity demonstrates how diffi-
cult it is to obtain one.

When you hear people talk of declara-
tions of nullity, further investigation will
reveal, in the vast majority of cases, that
they are referring to either marriages of
Catholics before ministers or Justices of
the Peace (too many of them), or mar-
riages where the one party later discovers
that his or her partner was bound by a
previous, valid marriage to another ( enough
of this type, too).

Chances are about 100 to 1 that they are
not referring to the rare type of case
mentioned above as an example.

Embracing Charity

We set out to find what the proper Cath-
olic attitude is toward the invalidly married.
In our search, we have discovered that the
key to the proper attitude lies in a knowl-
edge and appreciation of what the Church
teaches in its Canon Law.

Once we know that a Catholic is invalidly
married, we are called upon to confront
that fact, not in a spirit of pettiness or
hatred, but in the embracing charity of
Holy Mother Church.

31



We must pray and work for his early
return to the faith.

But we must not in any way, by associa-
tion or by gifts, by visits or by attitude,
manifest any approval of the sin.

We must always be ready to welcome
the repentant back into the Church.

But we must never compromise the spirit
and principles of our faith by condoning
the error.

Our charity “is patient, is kind.”

But our disapproval of the sin is un-
yielding.

32





THE QUEEN'S WORK

3115 South Grand Boulevard

St. Louis 1 8 # Missouri