Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

Are there any official guidelines for divorced people dating before seeking an annulment?  I know someone who is doing this and claims that they aren’t "breaking any rules" by doing so.  I say that its a mockery of the sacrament, as well as an abuse of the other person.

To answer this question, I need to distinguish two different situations: Some people are in need of what is called a "documentary process" annulment. These are cases where it is so clear that a marriage is null that all that has to be done is to present certain documents that will prove nullity. The most common kind of annulment in this category is when Catholics (who are obliged to observe the Catholic form of marriage) get married outside the Church without a dispensation. Another case would be a priest who jumps ship and attempts marriage without being laicized.

In these cases the nullity of the marriage is so obvious and certain that an extensive investigation is not needed, which is why the documentary process exists. It is possible, even before the annulment is granted, to be certain that one is not married to one’s former spouse.

In such cases, unless there is something else affecting the situation (like being an unlaicized priest), one is entitled to regard oneself as free to marry someone else, and it would not be wrong in principle to investigate prospective marriage partners. (Though it would still be prudent for a variety of reasons to get the documentary process annulment first.)

Most annulment cases, though, are not documentary process ones. They require an extensive, formal investigation, and they are known as "ordinary process" annulments. In these cases it is not clear prior to investigation that a person is free to marry, which is why the investigation is necessary.

Such marriages are presumed valid, and parties are obliged to regard themselves as still bound to their prior spouse until such time as it is proven that the marriage was null.

So what about dating before the annulment in their case?

"Dating" is a phenomenon that only appears in certain cultures. As a result, one won’t find it explicitly mentioned in the Code of Canon Law, which applies to cultures all over the world.

What one will find is a canon that requires the faithful to act in communion with the Church even in their daily activities:

Can. 209 §1.

The
Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to
maintain communion with the Church.

Things that would impair their communion with the Church, such as actions not consistent with Catholic morality, violate this obligation.

Further, the Code provides:

Can. 210

All the
Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote
the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their
own condition.

One thus cannot get around what moral theology would say on the grounds that one isn’t "breaking any rules" that are explicitly found in canon law. Canon law itself requires people to live in a moral manner and strive for holiness.

And even if canon law didn’t say this, the fundamental moral obligations to act in accordance with one’s state of life and to pursue holiness would remain.

Where this question really belongs is thus not in canon law but in moral theology: Is it moral to be dating someone if you are divorced and don’t have an annulment?

Dating is a romantic activity, and it is simply inappropriate to engage in romantic activity with one person when you must regard yourself as married to another. To do so is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (not coveting one’s neighbor’s spouse) that puts one in danger of temptations to violate the Sixth Commandment (not committing adultery).

Those who would need an ordinary process annulment must regard themselves as still married, and so for them dating in this condition has the same moral character as dating someone other than their spouses while still married.

Moral theology would repudiate the actions of a man who knows that he is bound to his wife yet dates another woman, and so it repudiates the actions of a man who must presume that he is bound to his wife yet dates someone else.

In addition, pursuing romance with someone else when you are presumed bound to another is just cruel. It not only tempts you to violate your marital obligations, it tempts another person into an immoral situation as well.

It also messes with both of your feelings and–should and annulment not be forthcoming–will lead you to the very distressing choice between continuing the relationship in violation of your marital obligations or ceasing the relationship and all the pain that will mean.

Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts and just plain wrong.

20

A reader writes:

I have been debating a friend on why underage drinking is wrong even if it is in moderation and if its intention isn’t to rely on alcohol for a good time or fit in. 

He believes that the law is unjust because of the binging and rebellion that has occurred as a result of a drinking age (in his opinion.)  He believes that he is living a Catholic example best by drinking responsibly and showing others how to drink responsibly despite the fact that it is against the law.  He believes that by staying away from alcohol completely I am actually hurting the common good and God’s law. 

I personally feel that to help the common good and the law we should obey it, and we are in fact morally bound to obey the law as long as it does not threaten morals or directly contradict God’s law. 

Go with your instincts on this one.

There are several issues here:

1) At what age does it become appropriate to consume alcoholic beverages?

This is something on which the Church has no specific teaching. While it is certainly true that one should not partake of alcoholic beverages "before one can handle them," this tells us nothing about when specifically that is.

The drinking age varies widely by culture and, if I understand matters correctly, some cultures have no minimum drinking age. (Though that is not of itself proof of anything, because some cultures are pretty messed up.)

There are a number of possible ways of handling the issue. Among them are these: (a) The matter should be exclusively determined by parents, so that parents can determine when and how much alcohol their children should have and thus guide them into its responsible use over time, (b) the matter should be largely determined by parents, but with a minimum age of some kind, (c) there should be a minimum age that still is below the age of legal majority (18 in our culture), (d) a person should be able to drink when he reaches the age of legal majority, and (e) a person should not be able to drink until after he reaches legal majority.

It seems to me that Catholic moral theology permits an individual to
hold–as a matter of personal opinion–that any of the above are the preferred way of dealing with the
subject.

Civil law does not give a similar latitude to what people can actually do. Option (e) is what civil law requires in the United States. The U.S. grants legal majority to individuals at 18 years of age but does not (generally, so far as I know) allow them to drink until they reach 21 years of age.

This brings us to the next issue . . .

2) When can you break the civil law?

This is another subject on which there are different opinions, but one thing that is certain is that you’ve got a pretty high burden of proof to meet before you can excuse yourself from observing the civil law. There are two reasons for this: (a) except when a law is manifestly unjust, it participates in some manner in natural and divine law and compels obedience for this reason and (b) you’ll get punished if you get caught, so there is a prudence issue as well.

Since it seems to mee that Catholic moral theology would allow any of the options mentioned above (1a-1e) as legitimate ways of handling the drinking issue, it seems that Catholic moral theology would NOT HOLD that laws stipulating (1d) or (1e) are clearly unjust.

The premise of your friend’s argument (that it is unjust not to let people drink before they are 21) thus strikes me as very, very shaky.

Even if we were to grant his premise, though, that still leaves a third issue . . .

3) When can you break the law as an example to others?

If you need to meet a high burden of proof to be able to break the law yourself, you need an even higher one to break it as an example to others.

It would be one thing for parents to conclude–in spite of whatever local drinking laws there may be–that their children need a slow introduction to alcohol to prevent them from going nuts once they are out of the home and thus give them sips of wine or champaigne at Christmas and New Years in the privacy of their own homes.

It would be entirely another thing for them to start encouraging other people’s children to do this.

To conclude that you are not morally obligated to follow a particular civil law is one thing (and a thing which requires a HIGH burden of proof), but it is a whole new order of magnitude to conclude that you should break the law as an example to others.

Society hangs together because people obey its laws. Society depends on a generalized respect for the law.

To privately break a particular law involves some disruption of the social fabric, but to publicly encourage others to break the law involves a much worse disruption of the social fabric.

As a result, this requires a much higher burden of proof–not only that the law is unjust but that it involves SO MUCH injustice that action in public defiance of the law must be taken.

I therefore find your friend’s argument wholly unpersuasive.

Not only is the premise that it’s based on (i.e., that 21 as a drinking age is unjust) something that is very, very shaky but the idea is simply boneheaded that he–or you–should go around publicly breaking the law as an example to others to encourage them to break the law, too.

This is especially the case when we realize that we’re talking about young people: Even if you and your friend are sterling examples of maturity for your age (and your friend isn’t holding up well in this regard to my mind), the people who you would be influencing by your behavior probably are not all equally responsible.

To encourage them to start drinking under age would be to tempt them into situations that could cause them grave harm–like getting drunk and doing immoral things, putting themselves in danger of long-term alcohol abuse, tempting them to break other laws casually, and getting busted by the police.

Your friend’s argument that you are harming God’s law by not breaking civil law is simply absurd. Even if he thinks that it is his duty to publicly defy drinking laws, his trying to guilt you into doing so is preposterous.

Catholic moral theology would IN NO WAY hold that you have an obligation to break drinking laws in order to set an example for others.

It sounds more to me like your friend is seeking to rationalize his own giving of scandal to others and is trying to rope you into doing the same thing so that he’ll feel more justified in what he is doing.

That is such a serious lapse in judgment that it should lead you to question your friend’s judgment generally.

With friends like that, you don’t need enemies.

One added note: If you have not yet attained the age of legal majority (18) then you are most definitely still under your parents’ authority and thus should not be doing ANYTHING regarding alcohol or breaking the law contrary to their instructions. Their right under natural and thus divine law to direct you in such matters is unambiguous.

20

Guestblogger Ed Peters writes . . .

Claude Allen suddenly resigned as one of President Bush’s top advisors a couple months ago. Last weekend, he was charged with multiple counts of shop-lifting at local retailers. The MSM is having a field day, of course. I’ve already seen lines like ‘Claude Allen, a proponent of home-schooling, was making $ 161,000 per year when he allegedly scammed the stores.’ But maybe it’s payback time; after all, when Teddy Kennedy left a young woman to drown in his car, the MSM reported ‘Congressman Kennedy, who supports the public school system, did not report the accident until the next day.’… Not.

Here, I wish to make just one point, prefaced by (1) a man is innocent until proven guilty, and (2) the behavior alleged here suggests psychological problems which might impact on moral responsibility, if not legal liability.

In any case, what is it that makes some people, when they find a way to be dishonest, think their discovery entitles them to act dishonestly? If a vending machine will kick out a can of pop if I hit in a certain way, have I the right to take a soda without paying for it, just because I could? (Hey, if the company cared, they could fix the machine, right?)  If a clerk turns his back on an open cash drawer, have I the right to take some money? (If they cared about it, they wouldn’t leave it within reach, right?) And if a retailer has procedures that let people get refunds on merchandise they never purchased, then sure, they better fix their procedures, but until they do, it’s open season on them.

Such attitudes, I suggest, are at root “antinomian”. They reflect the attitude that laws (and the morality upon which law rests) are merely as extrinsically-imposed rules that only apply to the degree one might get punished for breaking them. But if, on the other hand, one sees law as somehow (even remotely) being an intelligent participation in divine order, then one’s ability to avoid detection does not justify acting dishonestly.

All of us have sinned, and most of us have broken a law at one time or another. But a functioning conscience reminds us that these actions offend God; as Catholics, we accuse ourselves of wrong-doing and seek forgiveness in Confession. We resolve, with the help of God, to commit that sin no more and, if appropriate, to make reparations. By doing so, we acknowledge that we hurt mostly ourselves when we act wrongly, even when no one else finds out.

A reader writes:

I just wanted to know what is your opinion on people going to "Clubs?"  With Clubs, I mean dance clubs that are everywhere.  Many young adults in my generation seem to be enamored with the "Party" lifestyle, and that includes going to clubs, drinking, etc.  Do you think as Catholics, that is a particularly good place to be, or would it be wise to stay away from those places alltogether?  My priest said that sometimes the Devil is in there.

I’m afraid that in answering this question I’m hampered by a lack of data. Although I attend multiple dance clubs every week, I suspect that I’m attending a very, very different kind than the ones you are talking about. (SEE HERE.) The clubs that I attend do not serve alcoholic beverages, do not engage in sensual dancing, and on the whole are far more wholesome than the kind that I suspect you are talking about.

I can’t recall ever having been to a club of the kind that you seem to have in mind, and so I don’t really have a good handle for what goes on in them. I can use my imagination, but imagination is not a substitute for knowing the actual facts.

What I can do is break the question into its component parts and address them:

1) Drinking: Drinking in moderation is not immoral. Therefore, it is not intrinsically immoral for a business to serve alcoholic beverages or for people to patronize such a business.

If, however, one will be tempted to abuse alcohol in a particular setting then one should avoid that setting.

Due to the impairment of judgment that alcohol can cause, one should especially avoid settings in which alcohol is being served and other immoral activities are going on, like . . .

2) Sensual dancing: Young, unmarried people should not be engaging in dances that are deliberately intended to arouse sexual feelings. Young people have plenty of sexual feelings already and do not need to arouse more of them. Doing so constitutes a direct danger to their chastity.

I’m not saying that one cannot make dancing an occasion of romance–historically dancing has been a particularly noteworthy element of romance and courtship–but I am saying that dancing that is engaged in for purposes of arousing sexual feelings between people who are not married is intrinsically immoral.

It and the occasions of it are to be avoided, because they lead to . . .

3) "Hooking up." Now, I’m from a generation in which "hooking up" did not mean anything sexual, but from working with chastity speakers, I’ve learned that this phrase has a whole new signification among young people today and refers to intrapersonal contact (other than dancing) designed to arouse sexual feelings.

See previous notes about the lack of a need that young people have for additional sexual feelings and their responsibility to avoid deliberately arousing them.

"Hooking up" can, in turn, lead to or involve . . .

4) Outright sex.

I’m guessing that almost nobody reading this blog is going to be unaware of what Catholic moral theology would have to say about people who aren’t married having sex, so we needn’t dwell on the matter.

There are other elements of the "party lifestyle" to which you refer, including the use of illegal drugs, underage drinking, and the neglect of important duties (like schoolwork)–as well as the corollaries that tend to accompany unmarried sex (contraception, pregnancy, abortion, venereal disease).

There is also the issue of people getting emotionally involved with people (friends, girlfriends, boyfriends)  who are wrapped up in the party lifestyle. This is a problem in and of itself, for as St. Paul says: "Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company
ruins good morals’" (1 Cor. 15:33).

There is also the fact that environments such as this are bad places to meet good spouses. (They are, of course, good places to meet bad spouses, but those are by definition the kind of spouse that it is bad to have.)

Taken together, all of these things form a syndrome. Call it "Party Lifestyle Syndrome,"or PLS, if you want.

PLS is a bad thing to have, and one is morally obliged to avoid contracting it. One therefore needs to avoid the circumstances that might infect one with it.

This is not to say that one can never go to a dance club. I wouldn’t say that any more than I’d say that one can never go to a bar or a rock concert.

Moral theology does not require us to be stay-at-home, prudish wallflowers, but it does require us to recognize that patronage of places like these can pose a very real danger to our morals and we must take steps to avoid that danger.

Whether to go in a particular case is a judgment call, but young people in particular are well advised (wise) to err on the side of caution.

That being said, not all dance clubs are equal, and some out there are quite wholesome.

May I suggest square dancing?

The subject of immigration is heating up. With the presence of more than ten million people illegally in the United States–or three percent of the total population–many citizens are concerned enough that we seem to be building toward a breaking point on this subject.

As a result of all the news stories on this topic, I’ve had requests to explain the Church’s teaching in this area.

Sometimes folks receive the impression that Church teaching requires essentially an open-border policy where people can come into a country with no restraints, but this is not true. If you read the actual Church documents on the subject, they contain important qualifiers that are often dropped out of the discussion when presented by some individuals.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I’ve highlighted three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

This is a very different picture of how immigration should work than is presently being advocated by some.

Of course, what the Catechism has to say cannot in such a brief space represent all that moral theology would have to say about this topic.

For example, this passage of the Catechism does not mention another humanitarian endeavor that is incumbent on prosperous nations, which is teaching underdeveloped nations how to grow economically so that all of their citizens may benefit and not just the lucky few who can immigrate.

Since the latter humanitarian endeavor cures the problem at the source, it is the one that would be preferred by moral theology. Orderly, regulated immigration is a stopgap for cases in which this doesn’t work, but the goal must be primarily to help other nations shake off the problems (such as corruption and legal barriers to starting and maintaining businesses) that keep their populations in poverty.

You will note in this that I haven’t said anything about whether the U.S. has or has not absorbed all the immigrants it can or what the requirements on immigrants to the U.S. should be or what should be done with people who are present in the United States illegally.

I’m simply trying to point to certain parameters of the discussion as they are articulated in the Catechism.

A reader writes:

I was wondering if you might be able to help me with a problem that has been plaguing me for months now – and only seems to be getting much, much worse.

I think I’m suffering from a case of scruples – and my latest challenge has been trying to determine a boundary between what movies and television shows are appropriate and inappropriate to watch. Of course, I avoid watching blatantly dirty movies and television – but I started to wonder (and torture myself over) where the line can be drawn. As far as television is concerned, I wouldn’t watch something like Sex in the City because, in my opinion, the content of that show offers nothing except a sense of "see, everyone is doing it" to those who chose to live an immoral lifestyle…but what about a show I have always loved (although is sometimes a little racy) Seinfeld? Why is that appropriate for me to watch, or is it?

Then, as far as movies are concerned, how dirty is too dirty? I know to avoid movies with hard-core nudity and pornographic love scenes, but should I also avoid every movie that contains the flashing of a naked bosom, a glimpse of a buttock, the suggestion of promiscuity? Or is it possible to draw a boundary between the dirty movie and the less dirty movie??

I have asked my husband and family members, and no one seems to be able to give me a solid answer. Everyone keeps telling me that I’m being silly and over-sensitive, but I absolutely cannot rid myself of the feeling that I am going to be eternally damned for watching something that seems as harmless as Seinfeld. I have been driving my husband more and more insane as my sensitivity grows (although so far he has been a pretty good sport about it). I won’t watch our favorite tv shows because an immoral situation might come up, or this movie because it may have a dirty scene, or this movie because it shows a woman’s bare bosom through her shirt…it goes on and on…

Can you shed any light on this problem for me??

Yes, I had this problem, too, when I was a relatively new Christian and started scrupuling over where to draw the line. It’s common for folks to go through phases like this, so don’t worry about it. It’s normal.

The key to understanding what is not okay for you to watch is figuring out when you will be tempted to sin due to the content that you are exposed to. That’s the reason it becomes immoral to watch something.

It does not matter if you see (or hear or read about) someone doing something immoral as long as you are not tempted to do something immoral as a result.

For example: The Bible recounts stories in which it mentions people who burn their children to the pagan god Moloch.

Now: If you are a recovering Moloch-worshipper and could be tempted to burn your children to Moloch if you read those passages then you should not read them.

But if you are not a recovering Moloch-worshipper–if you are a person with a normal, non-Moloch-worshipping background–then you are very, very, very unlikely to be tempted to burn your children to Moloch (or anybody else) by reading such passages. As a result, they are safe for you. In fact, such passages are likely to actually strengthen your resolve not to be a Moloch-worshipper because of the fact that Moloch-worshippers do disgusting things like burn their children to him.

Same principle goes for everything else: If it tempts you such that you are likely to sin then you should avoid it. If it doesn’t, then it’s not a problem.

So: If your favorite TV programs or movies you want to see contain material that make it likely that you will go out and commit a sexually immoral act then you shouldn’t watch them.

Similarly: If they make it likely that you will willfully fantasize about committing such an act then you shouldn’t watch them.

If they make slight moments of temptation that you can easily resist pass through your mind then we are into relatively safe territory.

If they cause you to be revulsed by the immoral things characters are doing then we’re definitely on safe ground.

I’ve never really watched Seinfeld. I saw enough of it to realize that it wasn’t my cup of tea. I thought the characters in it were too cruel and amoral for the kind of comedy I enjoy. (Though I did think the Soup Nazi bit I saw was funny: "No soup for you!") But unless Seinfeld is tempting you to do or willfulling fantasize about doing gravely immoral stuff then you certainly will not be eternally damned for watching it.

Similarly, you being a woman, a movie with a woman’s bare breast showing through her shirt is not very likely to tempt you into doing or willfully fantasizing about anything gravely immoral. (Your husband is a different story, but let him be the judge of that; do not try to make that decision for him, especially while in a scrupulous state.)

It also is not reasonable to refuse to watch (or read or listen to) something because a temptation might come up. Temptations are going to come up in life. You can’t stop them from doing so. Even if you put yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, your own mind would manufacture its own temptations.

If we try to utterly avoid all temptation then we will end up hurting ourselves. Just think of how impoverished your life would be if you lived in a sensory deprivation tank and never got to see your husband (and children, if you have any).

What we have to do is take a risk-management approach to temptation. Life involves risk, and temptation is one such risk. We have to make the best judgment call we can based on the info we have. If what we know about a TV show/movie/book/whatever tells us that it will pose a significant temptation to us then we should avoid it.

Otherwise, we should not be scrupulous about it.

I should note that if we expose ourselves to a lot of material containing risk-laden material then it can have a cumulative, corrosive effect over a long period of time, and that is a danger to watch out for. (I.e., getting us to lower our threshold little by little until we are vulnerable to temptations that we didn’t used to be.)

But this is not the position you are in right now. You’re currently suffering from scruples so far as you can tell. The opposite danger–laxism–is one to watch out for, but you can’t let the danger of laxism drive you further into scrupulosity. The thing to do is try to get a balanced, healthy appraisal of things–and maintain it.

That means accepting some risks but rejecting others. Over time, if you try to be self-reflective about what poses a significant temptation to you and what doesn’t, you’ll figure it out.

Good luck, and good viewing!

20

P.S. MORE AT DECENTFILMS.COM.