Radio Replies Volume One: Matrimony

Radio Replies Volume One: Divorce

892. Christ allowed divorce for one reason. He said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh her to commit adultery." Matt. V., 32.

Christ allowed permanent separation if adultery be committed, but He does not allow divorce and re-marriage in the sense you intend. When He said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, etc.," the sense He intended was this, "Whosoever shall put away his wife (I am not speaking of mere separation without re-marriage, for that is lawful in the case of fornication), but whosoever shall put away his wife ... he that marries her commits adultery." This is the only possible interpretation in the light of parallel passages. Thus St. Mark records Christ's words absolutely, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her." X., II. In St. Luke, also, we have the words without any parenthesis: "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." XVI., 18. St. Paul tells us clearly, "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty." I. Cor. VII., 39. For a Christian, then, there is no such thing as divorce and re-marriage whilst the first partner is still living. Attempted re-marriage results in a sinful union only. You can have divorce and give up Christianity, or you can have Christianity and give up divorce You cannot have both.


893. The civil law admits divorce and re-marriage.

Civil law and divine law are not always in harmony. Politicians at times exceed their powers and make laws, which are contrary to those of God. Thus they have legislated concerning matrimony with no reference to the will of Christ who raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a Sacrament.


894. Your law imposes a great hardship upon the innocent party.

It is the law of Christ, not a law made by the Catholic Church. And it is at times hard upon the innocent party. But since when were we dispensed from the observance of God's laws on the score that obedience to them is inconvenient?


895. What can one do if the husband is absolutely impossible to live with, or is guilty of adultery?

Brutal cruelty and ill treatment afford lawful grounds for separation, as also does adultery if it has not been condoned. But this separation does not break the bond of marriage. Death alone can do that, and neither is free to marry again whilst the other is still living. For grave reasons a Catholic can obtain ecclesiastical permission to have the separation rendered legal by a civil decree of divorce in order to avoid legal difficulties, but this must be on the understanding that such a decree leaves neither party free to contract another marriage whilst the other party is still living.


896. Are there not many cases in history where the Pope has granted a divorce and permission to re-marry for various reasons?

You would find it very difficult to prove one such case. Many decrees of nullity have been issued, but they are not divorces. Yet even supposing that you could prove that some individual Pope had granted such a divorce, that would be no argument against the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It would but prove that such an individual Pope acted against his conscience and against the teaching of the Church. An appeal to the lapse on the part of an individual Pope proves nothing against the Church. You cannot disprove a law by pointing to a criminal who has broken it. The Catholic Church has always taught that divorce of a true marriage with the right to re-marry is not allowed.


897. Did not the Pope grant divorces to Louis XII. and Henry IV. of France, and very nearly to Henry VIII. of England, being prevented in this case by fear of Charles V.?

The two prior marriages you mention were declared to have been null and void from the beginning. Therefore no true marriage had ever existed. Louis XII. proved conclusively that he had not been a free agent, having been compelled by his father, Louis XI, to submit to the ceremony. So too, the first marriage of Henry IV. was declared null and void because Marguerite de Valois had been forced into the marriage by her mother, Queen Catherine, for political purposes. The free consent of both parties is necessary for a true and binding marriage contract. In the case of Henry VIII, the power of Charles V. was a motive why his marriage with Catherine of Aragon should not be declared null without rigid proof of its invalidity. At the same time, the enmity of Henry was to be avoided if at all possible, and theologians did all they could to see whether the first marriage were really null and void. But it was impossible, and at the risk of losing England to the Holy See a negative decision had to be given. Henry promptly declared himself head of the Church in England, and took the divorce Rome refused to grant.


898. Did not the Pope give Napoleon a divorce?

No. Napoleon married Josephine in 1796, a marriage validated by a dispensation from the Pope. From that marriage Napoleon never secured any divorce by lawful ecclesiastical authority. He forced a declaration of nullity from some unauthorized clerics, and they put him through a second marriage ceremony in 1810, but this attempted re-marriage was a mockery. The whole thing was a violation of the laws of the Church, and the Church has never acknowledged the second marriage as valid at all.


899. Marconi secured a divorce and teas re-married in the Catholic Church.

Marconi secured a decree of civil divorce from the state, but from the Catholic Church he secured a decree of nullity. The civil divorce broke no real bond of Church declared that the form of marriage Marconi went through with Miss Beatrice O'Brien on March 16, 1905, was null and void, and that both were really single people mistakenly believing themselves to be married. Nullity was proved by sworn evidence given by Marconi, Beatrice O'Brien, a Protestant, and many witnesses. The defect in the first marriage was not that it took place in the Anglican Church but that neither party consented to a marriage until death in the Christian sense of the word. They attempted to contract marriage until they should grow tired of each other, both lacking the knowledge that such a temporary contract is not a valid Christian marriage.


900. Were they living in adultery, and were their children illegitimate?

Even though objectively their marriage was invalid, they were both in good faith believing their state to be lawful, and therefore they were not guilty of a sin of adultery. Nor would any children have been illegitimate, for children of a putative marriage are entitled to legitimacy.


901. After being refused a divorce by the civil courts did not the Duke of Marlborough secure one from the Pope?

No. A civil divorce was granted in 1920, and both parties had married again before the case was put to Rome in 1926.


902. The Duke became a Catholic and promptly secured an annulment.

The Duke was a Protestant when the decision was given. Nor was it promptly given. The application was made to the Southwark diocesan court in 1925. This court, after scrutinizing all the evidence, gave judgment in February, 1926, that the first marriage was invalid from the beginning. Rome, not opposing the decision, but lest it might have been given too easily, called the case to the Holy See. The whole matter was reviewed, sworn testimony being obtained in America and England. The Holy See arrived at the same decision as Southwark and decreed nullity accordingly, six months later. You can hardly call that promptly.


903. Why was the Duke's first marriage invalid?

On November 6th, 1895, the Duke of Marlborough went through a marriage ceremony with an American girl, Consuelo Vanderbilt. Both were Protestants, and normally such a marriage would have been valid. However, Miss Vanderbilt had secretly promised to marry another man of her own choice, but the mother forced the girl to marry the Duke. The marriage was not a success, and they separated in 1905, by mutual consent. In 1920 they secured a civil divorce, and both married again. In 1925 the decision of the Catholic Church was sought as to whether the first marriage had ever been valid according to Christian principles. Rome sought all the evidence possible. Miss Vanderbilt's mother deposed on oath, "I forced my daughter to marry the Duke, thinking her objections merely those of an inexperienced girl." Her aunt deposed on oath, "This marriage was forced on the girl, who desired to marry someone else altogether." Another friend of the mother deposed that "it was no question of persuasion, but of absolute constraint." Rome could not but decide that, abstracting altogether from the civil decree of divorce, the parties had never really been married at all.


904. It looks as if money had weight with Rome.

Not at all. Not all the money in the Bank of England would be of any avail to secure an annulment from the Church if the first marriage had ever been valid. Meantime the trial at Southwark, with three judges and two other officials, lasting three months, cost $40 in expenses. The retrial in Rome lasted six months. There was much more expense in securing sworn testimonies from America and England, and in the number of legal men employed. This trial cost $200 in expenses; not a very great burden to the parties concerned. Moreover, the law of the Church is that litigants bear expenses only if they are able to afford them. In the ten years between 1920 and 1930 some 120 matrimonial cases were tried in Rome. In 69 cases the litigants paid expenses. In nine cases a nominal fee only was paid. In 39 cases the expenses were totally remitted. Nor did the offerings make any difference in the decisions given. Sixty-six per cent, of those who paid, and 89 per cent, of those who could not pay, obtained favorable decisions.


905. It comes to the same thing. We Protestants get a divorce from the state whilst Catholics get an annulment from their Church.

There is all the difference in the world between the two positions. A civil divorce claims to break the bonds of a valid marriage, bonds which the Catholic Church rigidly declares to be unbreakable. A decree of nullity does not break the bonds of a valid marriage at all. It declares that the marriage was never a true marriage and that there is no bond to break. It declares that the reputed marriage was null and void as a contract from the beginning. Had it been valid, the bond could not be broken save by the death of one of the parties.

&&

Radio Replies Volume Two:Marriage and Divorce

He instituted marriage as a Sacrament. The ceremonies of today accompanying that Sacrament have been instituted by the Church in virtue of the authority to do so, given her by Christ.

A civil divorce on the understanding that it gives a legal right to separation, but that it in no way dissolves the latent bond of marriage and gives no right to remarriage whilst both parties still live, is permitted at times for very grave reasons. But under no circumstances does the Catholic Church permit divorce in the sense of abolishing the bond of marriage and as giving a right to remarry, where baptized people are concerned.

No. When two Protestants marry, their marriage is valid in the sight of God. Now it is certain that Christ absolutely forbade divorce, and remarriage whilst the former partner is still living. Protestants, therefore, cannot, any more than Catholics, contract a second marriage valid in God's sight whilst a former wife or husband is still living. No civil divorce can give them the right to do so as far as God is concerned, for no legislation of men is really valid when it is opposed to the legislation of God. The State may tell Protestants that they are free to contract second marriages after getting a civil divorce. But if Protestants accept that permission, then they accept the principle that human laws have higher authority than the legislation of Christ Himself. We Catholics can never admit that, and to your question I must reply that, whatever civil law may say about it, a second marriage of a divorced Protestant whilst his first wife is still living, is simply null and void in the sight of God.

I am afraid that is because you are a humanitarian rather than a Christian. Christ forbade divorce and remarriage; and the Catholic Church has no option save to maintain His law. Marriage is the foundation of collective life, and symbolizes the life-giving union of Christ with His Catholic Church, a permanent union never to be broken, but to last all days till the end of the world. And the union of two Christian people who marry should last till the end of their lives.

I am sure of that also. But the Catholic Church cannot water down Christian obligations in order to gain converts. She is not here to adjust Christian teaching to the desires of men. She is here to lift men to Christian ideals.

Protestant Churches, I admit, have failed hopelessly to safeguard Christian ideals of marriage. The stability of marriage is recognized practically, and firmly defended, only by the Catholic Church. And she stands apart from the laxity of other Churches because she sees more clearly than they, and knows by divine wisdom what is the right attitude in this matter. She knows that she is divine and that she must watch over the world in the name of God. She is charged with the care of morality, and makes her stand where others give way. Her prohibition of divorce safeguards the moral welfare of the married; prevents thoughtless marriages and easy separations; protects women, so unequal to men in the contract by fragility and need of support; and benefits the children, future humanity itself, by securing for them a permanent home and continuous education. Divorce is bad for society, for individual morality, and for human life in its totality.

Unhappy marriages are likely to be far fewer where possibilities of divorce and remarriage are excluded. People accuse the Catholic Church of not recognizing the real conditions of life. But in reality, she knows the best conditions of life, takes higher views, and refuses to allow that a valid marriage can be broken by divorce. Where marriage is an absolute failure and grave evils can result from continued relations, the Church permits separation; and, if necessary, civil divorce for the sake of legal obligations. But this civil divorce gives the right to separation only, not to remarriage whilst both parties still live. It is absurd to want a law safeguarding good marriages and breaking up bad ones. Such a law would react on the minds of those contemplating marriage, of parents, married couples, and children. It leads to doubt, instability, and infidelity. It is no use saying that civil divorce laws take precautions. People easily find a way through such precautionary measures, and it ends in the rule of pleasure, with the tide of divorces ever increasing.

Marriage is dissolved by death. But apart from that, a perfected marriage in the Christian law cannot be dissolved. Thus, in St. Mark X., 11, 12, our Lord says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." In 1 Cor. VII., 39, St. Paul says, "A woman is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty."

That text does not mean, as some people seem to think, that Christ allowed divorce where adultery has been committed. We get the right interpretation from the context and from parallel passages. The context shows us that Christ was abolishing previous permissions of divorce. Parallel passages give us absolute prohibitions with no conditional clause thrown in by way of parenthesis. The passages quoted in the preceding reply leave no loophole of escape. Death alone really breaks the bond of marriage. How, then, is the text from St. Matthew to be understood? There is but one possible interpretation. Our Lord indeed intends to forbid divorce, but He does not intend to forbid permanent separation when adultery has been committed. He, therefore, takes care to exclude this latter case from His decree, throwing in the exception by way of parenthesis. The correct sense, then, is this: "Whosoever shall put away his wife (I am not speaking of mere separation without remarriage, for that is lawful in the case of fornication), but whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery." The Christian law absolutely forbids divorce and remarriage whilst the first partner still lives. Those who accept such divorce abandon Christianity and deny the authority of Christ. No permission given by civil legislation can avail against the prohibition imposed by God. According to the teachings of Christ, divorced and remarried people are simply living in adultery.

I deny that the differing passages of Matthew and Mark express wide and narrow concepts of divorce. They do not. They both express the same equally strict Christian concept that marriage between Christians is binding until death. Some modernist critics may claim that there is a conflict between the passages in Matthew and Mark. But that says nothing. These criticis say and unsay all kinds of things. And their verdicts are confounded by wiser critics than themselves. Moreover, the wrangling of critics outside the Catholic Church avails nothing against the authoritative teaching of that Church on the subject; save, of course, for those seeking an escape from Christian obligations. These people make much of the critics, not because they are convinced of the worth of what the critics say, but because it gives them an excuse to do what they want to do. Moral weakness is intelligible, but at least let us be straight and honest.

Christianity, then, must be adjusted to the tendency of the times. As the times change, Christianity must change. But if it changes, it is no longer the Christian religion. It will be another religion masquerading under the name of Christian. As for recognizing that the matter must be treated in the broad spirit of Christianity, the advice must be: "First catch your hare." In other words, it is necessary to recognize the broad spirit of Christianity before one can be guided by its light. The whole dispute is between the sacramental and secular views of marriage. The Christian view is the sacramental; the un-Christian view is the secular. And the spirit of Christianity will have to be broad indeed when it can accept the un-Christian view without any qualms of conscience.

In their estimate, therefore, the civil concept has supplanted the Christian concept. And the source of authority for this change is simply that people want it, and that the law of the land approves it, with no reference to God's authority. One hears the echo of the old cry, "We have no king but Caesar!"

She had no right to do that, of course. And so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, her bond of marriage with you is still binding.

You are not free to marry again whilst your wife still lives. And the Catholic Church has no option in this matter. She is here to see that the law of Christ is observed; not broken.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. But I cannot agree with your further remarks.

The Catholic Church is not free to permit it. Christ Himself has given the law, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder." Matt XIX., 6.

Once two people have validly received the Christian Sacrament of Matrimony, they have entered into a contract binding until death. The Church must insist upon the necessity of observing that law. And the matter is so serious, that exceptions cannot be made. There is scarcely a general law in existence which does not hurt somebody. But if the common good demands a rigid general law in important matters, the general good must prevail over the occasional hard cases. But, in any case, the Catholic Church lacks the right to tamper with this positive law of Christ.

Previous fervor in one's religion does not give the right to later laxity. Nor can any years of good example give the right to set a bad example; whilst former service of God and the Church cannot justify any subsequent offense against God, or subsequent violations of the laws of the Church.

The appeal to what is expedient from your point of view cannot outweigh that which is right from God's point of view. The girl must look elsewhere for a husband. You yourself are not free to marry whilst your wife still lives. This probably sounds hard to you. And it is hard. Not for a moment would I deny that. But do not blame me for your difficulty. I am but stating the law of Christ, and Christ never promised that the observance of His laws would always be easy. Nor did He say that we are dispensed from it when it becomes difficult. When Christ gave the law that one who puts away wife or husband, and marries another, commits adultery, the disciples saw the possibility of such hard cases, and said, "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry at all." Matt. X., 10. But our Lord did not mitigate His prohibition. I have deep sympathy for you in the trial God has permitted to come upon you. But there is only one thing to do, take up your cross and carry it for the love of Christ, faithfully keeping His law, even though four wife has violated it.

Where before you appealed to expediency from your point of view, you now appeal to expediency from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. But the case is in no way improved. We must stand to principle, even though the heavens fall. What is merely expedient cannot dispense us from what is known to be right. The Catholic Church cannot adjust the teachings of Christ to the will of men. She must persuade men to adjust their conduct to the teachings of Christ. If the girl you mention marries you outside her Church, she will know in her own heart that before God and in conscience she is not married to you at all. She will also be deprived of the rights and consolations of her religion, and all that you can offer to take the place of God in her soul is yourself. And I am sure you do not think that any human being could be a sufficient substitute for God in any human soul. If you wish to make the girl happy, you will not do so by marrying her. If you desire her good, you will rather advise her to look elsewhere for someone who is free to marry her.

You might have brought the girl into it, too. However, the only advice I can give you which accords with the laws of the Catholic Church is that you should cease to contemplate any further marriage whilst your wife still lives. I cannot offer you the satisfaction of your own wishes in this case. I can but offer you the opportunity of Christian self-denial for the love of God.

The Catholic Church has often declared marriages thought to be valid to be in reality null and void. These declarations of nullity merely say that no real matrimonial bond ever existed, owing to some invalidating impediment at the time of the matrimonial contract. But you evidently have in mind the case where a marriage was not null and void from the very beginning, yet where the Catholic Church has granted a decree nullifying an existent marriage bond. The Church has the power to dissolve such a marriage, and has done so, but never in the case of two baptized Christians who have both contracted and consummated their marriage. The death of one of the parties can alone dissolve such a marriage, and the Catholic Church declares that neither she nor any other power on earth can do so. Where other types of marriage are concerned, those who desire a decision can but submit their particular cases to the proper ecclesiastical tribunals which are appointed to consider whether the Church has the power to annul them, and whether there are sufficient reasons to justify her use of that power.

Napoleon first contracted a merely civil marriage with Josephine. This marriage being invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Napoleon decided to put things right, and married her according to the requirements of the Church.

Napoleon's union with Marie Louise cannot be called a marriage. He forced a decree of nullity from some subservient and unauthorized clerics, and compelled others to officiate at his marriage ceremony with Marie Louise according to the religious rites of the Catholic Church. But this attempted marriage was a mockery, and has never been acknowledged by the Catholic Church as valid. His first marriage with Josephine had been rectified, was valid, and could be broken only by his or her death.

That is not correct. In 1905 Marconi went through a marriage ceremony with Miss Beatrice O'Brien. Miss O'Brien, despite her name, was a Protestant, and Marconi was a very ill-instructed Catholic at the time. Neither of them intended marriage in the Christian sense of the word at all. Christian marriage is a permanent contract until death. Yet these two intended marriage only until they should grow tired of each other. They may have thought that was all right, but it wasn't all right; and what they thought to be a marriage was simply null and void as a Christian Sacrament. Eventually they grew tired of each other, and got a civil divorce. Long after their civil divorce, the case was put to Rome, and a verdict was sought as to how the former experimental marriage was regarded in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The verdict was, "Null and void from the very beginning." This was not a decree of divorce breaking any existent bond of matrimony, but a decision of nullity, declaring that no bond of matrimony had ever existed, and that the parties had really been single people, however erroneously they might have thought themselves to be married. And being single people, they were free to marry whom they might please.

The decision really emphasizes how rigid the Catholic Church is in her vindication of marriage against divorce, and in her doctrine that death alone can break the bond of a valid marriage. For here she declares that a marriage is no marriage at all unless the parties do enter into the contract on the understanding that death alone can terminate it. The Marconi case, far from showing that the Catholic Church does permit divorce, is but a further indication of the rigid attitude of that Church against divorce.

In reality it was no more than a Companionate Marriage, though the ceremony took place in an Anglican Church, and was recognized by civil law.

The State declared that they were to be treated legally as husband and wife. But they were not husband and wife in reality and before God. The only form of marriage recognized for Christians by the Christian religion is a permanent contract binding until death. If two Christians go through a marriage ceremony intending a temporary contract or a trial marriage only, they do not contract a true marriage at all before God, whether their marriage is acknowledged by civil law or not. Now Marconi's first marriage was a temporary contract only. The State regarded them as married, but in reality and before God they were not married at all. The State ceased to regard them as married when it granted them a civil divorce. And then they were legally, as they had been all along in reality, single people.

That does not follow. The fact that a marriage is legal does not mean that it is a true and binding marriage in the sight of God. The civil law will accept the marriages of divorced Christians as legal, though such marriages are forbidden by God, and not recognized by Him as marriages at all. Christ said clearly, "He that puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery." If the second marriage were valid, he would not be living in adultery. It is evident, therefore, that not every legal marriage is a true marriage from the Christian point of view. Now after Marconi had secured a civil divorce releasing him from civil obligations, the case was put to Rome, asking whether the marriage had ever been a true marriage from the Christian point of view. The reply was, no. This was not a divorce annulling any existent bond, but a declaration that there had never been any bond in the sight of God at all. Surely you can see the difference between the breaking of a bond, and the declaration that no bond had ever existed.

Here you are mistaken. It is certain that Christian marriage is essentially a permanent union until death. A condition made by the parties against this essential requirement would invalidate the marriage, even though made privately. But here is the point to be noted. If a declaration of nullity is sought from the courts of the Church, the Church will not accept the word of the parties concerned that they agreed privately to limit their consent to a given period. If they went through the form of marriage, the presumption stands for the validity of that marriage until outside proof is forthcoming that the parties did agree to a temporary contract only. In the Marconi case, outside proof was available; for prior to the marriage, the girl's mother extracted a promise from Marconi that the girl was to be freed as soon as she found that she was not happy, and that she was to be granted a divorce in order that she might marry somebody else. If the two had merely agreed privately, and no evidence was available save their own, they would not have secured any decree of nullity. They would have been told that if, indeed, they had limited their consent, their marriage would be invalid before God. But as they could not prove that in the external order, the marriage must stand, and their obligation would bet to rectify their defective consent at once, and render the marriage valid in conscience by mutual agreement of permanency until death.

I think I have already shown that your impression is not justified. Of course, since the parties make the contract, and it is essential that they intend a permanent ontract, the parties could invalidate the marriage by refusing to intend a permanent contract. But the Church teaches that this would be gravely sinful, and that such a mock marriage would be no marriage at all, and that any attempt to live as married people would be mortal sin. So that she leaves no one free to make such a contract. If a couple did contemplate such a temporary contract, and the Church knew of the conditions beforehand, the Church would refuse absolutely to perform the marriage. If the parties made the condition privately, and the Church did not know, the Church can but take it for granted that they intend a true and permanent marriage in the Christian sense of the word, and perform the ceremony. But their merely saying afterwards, as you suggest, that they really didn't mean a permanent marriage, and will the Church please give them a decree of nullity will be of no use. the Church won't take their word for it, will refuse the decree, and order them to rectify their defective consent.

Radio Replies Volume Two: Attitude to "Free Love"

In other words, immorality for you is not a vice, and chastity is not a virtue. You see no harm in unbridled lust, and think pleasure the only standard of conduct. No wonder you cannot appreciate the Catholic religion! But tell me, honest searcher after truth as you are, if later you do marry and have children, would you advise one of your own daughters to become a prostitute? Would you assure her that she would thus be entering a quite honorable profession, nobly contributing to the legitimate pleasure and happiness of mankind, and at the same time embracing a profitable career?

You are talking arrant nonsense. You give as a reason for avoiding stealing and murder the fact that they harm our neighbors. Do you deny that they are wrong in themselves? If you steal $100, is the only thing wrong the fact that your victim has lost the $100? Was there no dishonesty and moral depravity in your action considered in itself? And if you say your action was not wrong in itself, will you tell me why it is wrong in itself to harm your neighbor? What precisely is your standard of morality—if you have one? Your assertion that promiscuous sexual pleasures harm no one is. of course, merely stupid. Individually and socially they have caused untold harm. The man who has not learned to control his passions in accordance with the purpose intended by God will end by descending to a level lower than that of the brute beast. And in no passion is this more quickly verified than in the case of sensuality and lust. The man who thinks sensual pleasures an end in themselves to be sought quite lawfully whenever desired will himself end in a corrupt heart, an enfeebled intelligence, and a paralyzed will, his whole character ruined.

You say you would become a Catholic if you could get the conviction we call "Faith." But the light of Faith is as little likely to shine in a mind which entertains such views as a candle is likely to burn in the depths of a well whose atmosphere is thoroughly foul and corrupt. Christ Himself indicated the relation between morals and faith when He said that they who love the works of darkness come not to the light.

I will leave you with little doubt on the subject, I hope, by the time I have finished commenting on your letter.

You almost make me despair of humanity when you say that. The very first man you met should have been able to tell you. We are indeed reaping the fruits of secularism and driftage from Christianity! The Victorian rationalists attacked the Christian religion, and Protestantism was not able to resist that attack. Protestant writers compromised, and watered down the Christian Creed. Then the rationalists turned their guns on the Christian Code. There exists today a vast conspiracy of modern intellectuals to destroy the very principles of sexual morality. And your letter is evidence of the extent to which their doctrines have percolated to the masses. You are one of those who have discovered that, having lost the Christian Creed, you cannot keep the Christian Moral Code. As belief in a future life becomes dim, and God, and sin, and punishment for sin, pass into the region of fairy tales, pleasure becomes the rule of conduct. At the foot of the Cross of Christ men found strength to deny themselves, and take up their own cross. But, having lost faith in Christ, well, they are off to amuse themselves. But the state of affairs today is particularly depressing. History records that great wars were followed by loose morals for a period, after which there was a reaction to decent standards. But there are grave reasons to fear that there will be no reaction this time. In former ages the moral law was broken; but its truth was not questioned. But now thousands like yourself have lost the moral sense. You rank the old standards as outworn conventions. And denying virtue to be virtue, you will never want to recover it.

So that is how far you have drifted! Moral obligations are a matter of custom only. There is to be no God to Whom we owe a duty; no Christ Whose law we must acknowledge; not even reason to control our conduct. Morality is merely "custom," and men are as sheep who all follow one another through a break in the fence merely because others are doing it! Your ignorance is simply appalling. For not only are you quite unaware of Christian teaching; you do not realize that, on this matter of sex, Christian moral standards have a majestic philosophy behind them which includes the best thoughts of Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics, and the most enlightened of Jewish thinkers. But more of this later.

It is good that you should make some attempt to find out the reasons for the custom, instead of merely declaring the custom to be accepted because it is the custom.
But you are wrong if you imagine that the custom arose merely by human agreement; and that it is a convention made by men, and therefore able to be abolished by them at their own sweet will. It is God Himself who forbids sex-relations outside the married state, and that both by revelation, and by the innate moral law He has stamped upon our very being, a law of which all normal people are aware. Those not aware of it are either mentally deficient, or have distorted and warped their characters by conscious depravity.

In other word?, why is deliberate indulgence in sexual pleasure immoral, apart from marriage? Because chastity happens to be a virtue; and the opposite of virtue is vice. God forbids vicious conduct. Christ forbids it, and says, "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." Matt. VIII., 8. If you advocate impurity as being quite all right in itself, you fall lower than the ancient pagans. They at least were not blind to the beauty of chastity. Chastity is a virtue, which controls in the married, and altogether excludes in the unmarried, all voluntary indulgence in the sensual and passionate pleasures associated with functions ordained by God for the reproduction of the human race. God implanted in us two great bodily appetites, the one for food to preserve the individual life; the other for sex-relations to preserve the life of the race. The pleasure attached to these appetites is to induce people to do what is necessary for God's purpose. To enjoy the pleasure whilst fulfilling the duty is lawful. But the purpose, and not the pleasure, is the main thing. Take food. The virtuous man eats in order to live. The man given to the vice of gluttony lives in order to eat. He is ruled by his senses instead of controlling them; and that is immoral. Against his health the drunkard makes use of a function which should serve for health. The sex appetite is for social health. To seek indulgence in it without regard to its end or purpose is a crime against nature, and a degradation. And the end or purpose is lawfully sought only in the state appointed by God for that purpose, the state of marriage.

That is natural to man which is in accordance with his complete nature. Now man consists of both body and soul. He is both animal and spiritual. He has senses, but he has reason also. And his soul, the spiritual in man, should control by reason the lower animal passions, and not be controlled by them. The soul must rule the body. The body must not rule the soul. That which accords only with the blind passions of man's lower animal self, but which is opposed to the dictates of reason and conscience, is not natural, but unnatural to man. A mere animal gratification of the appetites is not the purpose of life. It is puerile because unreasoning; and it is degrading, for, as Cicero says, "Human nobility lies in that quality by which he differs from animals—his mind." The Christian, at least, is bound to fight for virtue; he must struggle to control blind passions. Unregulated self-indulgence is to grow flabby in one's character, and impair one's will. The pleasure lover who talks of "self-expression," and laughs at the idea of "self-repression," ends in utter depravity. Chastity is the only law which has ever lifted life above the tyranny and bondage of the lusts of the flesh. It may be difficult, but to say that it is right to violate chastity because it is difficult is a complete renunciation of human dignity and nobility.

You are progressing! Contraceptives can be so easily obtained now that unfortunate consequences of immorality can be obviated. Therefore the immorality itself ceases to be immoral. Is that what you mean? Do you think it the new ideal that men and women, boys and girls, should be free to secure any pleasure they can give each other without any restrictions at all—because contraceptives are procurable? Can't you see that there is much more against securing sex-pleasures from a girl to whom you are not married than against securing them by solitary vice? Or do you deny that there is any such vice as impurity at all? If one addicted to solitary acts of impurity is corrupt and depraved, is it quite all right for him to corrupt others? Such apologies for sin are simply disgusting, and I can only hope that there are not many who take the outlook you are trying to express.

In other words, you imagine that the moral law in this matter is due to a kind of "dog-in-the-manger" attitude on the part of married people! But the law is not due to that at all. All single people, with a natural sense of morality, maintain the same thing. God Himself has said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbidding any indulgence outside marriage. Christ said that if a man looks after a woman in the street to lust after her, he has already committed adultery in his heart. The natural moral law itself tells us that sex is for reproductive purposes, and that its exercise is lawful only in the state nature itself ordains for those purposes. Sex is essentially a function of the family. There is a whole world of meaning and value in the family. The relation of husband and wife is the highest form of personal union. This union is sacred, not only in itself, but also in its character as the creative source of life for both individuals and society. The family is the vital foundation by which life is handed on from generation to generation; it is the nursery of all social virtues; the only safeguard of the deeper values of human life against the vulgarities of license. If your licentious theories are adopted, women will find love stripped of all romance, all decency, all reserve, and all fidelity. In declaring all indulgence outside marriage to be gravely immoral and wrong, in forbidding irregular unions because they separate sex from its proper social function, Christianity adopts standards which are based on a true conception of human nature, and in full accordance with the genuine discoveries of biology and sociology.

Do you mean to say that the only harmful effect you can see in what you propose is the possibility of a girl becoming an unmarried mother; and that therefore all is well provided she be preserved from that external consequence by the use of contraceptives? But take yourself first. Is not the loss of your own virtue a harmful effect? Once commence such conduct, and how far will you go? Until you become a debauched rake, and utterly depraved? You may say no, but that you confine your suggestions only to relations before marriage with the particular girl you intend to marry. Then is it no harm to her to rob her of her greatest treasure— her virtue? An indescribably pure and clear atmosphere surrounds the chaste. If a girl has other faults, yet preserves her purity, all honor seems to remain to her. If she loses that, she joins the ranks of all other "fallen women." Would you do that in the name of love? Love seeks the good of the one loved even at the expense of self. A good man who sees the girl he loves in danger of her life will risk his to save her. But you are not talking "love," you are talking "lust"—a lust which seeks personal gratification at the expense of a deceived victim. It is lust which lays waste all the nobler instincts of manhood, and all the special beauty and charm of womanhood. And should you not marry the particular girl after all, will you seek to ruin others, leaving her with a life-long consciousness of pre-marital infidelity, the more torturing the better the man she does marry in the end—if she does so at all? Your suggestion is that of a man who has no moral standards, and does not even see the need of them. You express the standards of those who want merely a thoroughly selfish gratification at the price of a good woman's virtue. God help all good women, if your views ever become prevalent amongst men. The only way to protect the higher interests of all human beings, both individually and socially is to cling to or return to Christian standards. Sex has duties as well as privileges. It is an opportunity of self-sacrifice, and the serving of God as well as the best interests of the human race. The procreation of children is the explanation and justification of sex indulgence. That is lawful only in the married state. Outside marriage, therefore, all indulgence in sex pleasure deliberately sought is a perversion, immoral, and sinful before God.

I can but explain the moral law, and urge people to keep it. But instruction of itself does not convert people. The grace of God and their own good will are also required. Still I agree with you that the growing tide of immorality is an anxious problem. And loose ideas on the whole subject of petting, flirtation, and love-making are growing more and more widespread as moral restraints are abandon- ed. And these loose ideas have led to the wholesale breaking of God's commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Morally, of course, free love can never be just- ified. By free love I mean free indulgence in love-making between a man and a woman for its own sake, without any honorable purpose of marriage in view, and with no sense of further obligations to one another. Many people understand by free love straight-out adultery. But I go further back than that. For just as honorable love leads to marriage, so dishonorable love is the road that leads to adultery. And dishonorable love-making is already sinful, and immoral in itself.

If people lose themselves, it is not from love for one another, but from selfish indulgence of their own passions regardless of the welfare of the one they pretend to love. Such conduct does not deserve the name of love at all. The only love-making which is morally justified is that of lawful courtship, with possible marriage in view, and with all the restraints of respect and modesty. Courtship begins by a man singling out a girl for special attention, and by the manifestation of affection for her. And this is justified only provided the man and the girl are free to marry, and have at least a remote intention of possible marriage. So parents have the right to ask any man who seeks to bestow his attentions upon their daughter whether he intends possible marriage. And if two young people have genuine love for one another, there is not much danger of their losing themselves. For true love is not dominated by sensuality. It is something deeper than mere emotion and flesh, passion and lust. It is a firm mutual affection based on mutual respect for each other's character. It is unselfish, thinking of the good of the other, and would rather endure any self-restraint than harm the other in any way. Certainly if love-making does not rise above the mere thrill of bodily sensations, it can be no more than indulgence in passion. And a woman makes herself very cheap who is ready to give herself to anyone, or even various and different men who happen to reach out for her. It is, of course, flattering to a girl to be singled out for special attention and demonstrations of affection. Her natural inclination may be to grasp at the joy of being loved. But she should ask herself a few questions. Is the man free to marry her? If not, he is merely one of those men who can't keep his hands off women. If he is free to marry, does he merely want her to be his plaything for the moment? If so, he does not love her at all, but wants her merely to pander to his passions, a thing any good girl will indignantly reject. Already his very attempt to break through her reserve and bestow his ardent attentions upon her is immoral; and if she accepts them, and allows them to continue, she will find that they are but a prelude to graver sins threatening complete moral wreckage.

Correct. The instinct of love between male and female is implanted by God primarily for the production of children. The mutual attraction of the sexes towards one another, and its expression by love-making, kissing, and embracing gravitate of their very nature towards that complete bodily union which terminates in the child. There is no love between persons of opposite sex which does not spontaneously and consistently aim at this design of nature, however ignorant of the fact young people may be. Any couple indulging in flirting, love-making, kissing, petting, and cuddling, is already inviting the prospective child, however remotely. And since parenthood is unlawful outside marriage, indulgence in free love for its own sake outside marriage and apart from all intentions of marriage, is unlawful and sinful. Whoever is not in a position to meet nature's purposes in lawful wedlock is not morally free to indulge in exchanges of love primarily intended for the procreation of children and the conservation of the human race.

Such passionate love-making in mere boys and girls, who cannot be seriously thinking of marriage, is in itself gravely sinful conduct. Such young people are neither able to appreciate nor to fulfill the heavy responsibilities of fatherhood or motherhood. If any such young boys and girls do indulge in such love-making, it is either because they lack instruction, or because they lack any real character formation. They seem to think that as soon as they experience the love urge towards the opposite sex, as soon as those first dawning inclinations come to them, it must be right to indulge them merely because experienced. So they yield to their impulses, and wallow in fervent endearments and caresses which are merely the indulgence of blind sex instinct. The end is only too often both moral and social disaster. Such boys and girls have never been taught that blind inclinations and passions must be controlled in accordance with reason and conscience; or, if they have been told that, they have not been trained in self-control even in other departments of life. I need scarcely say that if boys and girls indulge in passionate love-making with their parents' consent, then such parents are either criminals or lunatics. If without their parents' knowledge, then the parents have never been true parents to those children at all. They have neither exercised proper supervision, nor have they instilled into their children the right principles of obedience and confidence.

You must remember that a priest can give advice only according to such facts as are submitted to him for the purpose. It is quite possible that boys and girls indulging in love-making as a pastime drown their uneasiness of conscience, persuade themselves that it is not so wrong, and fail to mention the matter in confession. They have a false conscience on the subject, to which many things contribute. Finding the topic delicate, teachers at school avoid it, and give little instruction on the matter. Parents at home are careless in the general upbringing of such children. And at the pictures the children sit with an obviously approving audience whilst the sweetness and delights of women in men's arms are graphically depicted. It is not surprising that so many children should deceive themselves into thinking that it is not so wrong for them also to indulge their artificially stimulated instincts.

There is no difference between theory and practice, so far as the Catholic Church is concerned. The moral theology of the Catholic Church is clear on the subject, and the priest will apply it in practice by rightly assessing the guilt of conduct about which he is interrogated, and by forbidding in the name of God what is to be forbidden. Catholic theology teaches that conventional demonstrations of love by kissing and embracing between parents and children, relatives and friends, which abstract altogether from sex interest are not sins. Such behavior between persons of opposite sex for the mere sake of the sensual thrill is venially sinful at least, provided there be no honorable intentions of courtship and possible marriage. Ardent and prolonged embracing between detached persons of the opposite sex who have no intention of marriage is ranked as mortal sin by Catholic theology almost invariably. But, whilst a priest applies these principles in practice and advises people accordingly, he has no means of making everybody live up to them any more than he can ensure the observance of any of the commandments by merely stating them. But I do admit that adolescent boys and girls should have these principles put more clearly before them than is commonly done; and that parents should exercise much more control and take much more interest in their sons and daughters during the earlier years of their development than most parents do.

That should be obvious. I have already said that free love-making is morally wrong even for single people. It is still more gravely wrong for married people. For Christian people marriage is a state in which a man and woman, who are free in conscience to do so, give themselves to each other permanently for the sake of children, and mutual love and companionship. They vow absolute fidelity to each other, and each obtains exclusive rights to the other's love and affection. Any alienation of affection is a great sin. Any third party who would seek to bestow his attentions on a person vowed to another in an existent marriage commits grave sin. So would any married person who would either bestow his or her attentions elsewhere, or accept such attentions. Injustice is measured by the reasonable resentment of the owner. And how greatly a good man would resent the injustice did he find his wife in the arms of another man can be imagined without any great effort. The intruding party would not long be left in doubt, nor the wife. Unfaith-fullness of heart is already a sin, and it is most frequently followed by straight-out adultery, and not seldom by the divorce court.

The very terms are contradictory. For by the mere fact of being married, people are no longer free to accept love from others or bestow their love upon others. No wife can exchange affection, or yield to the embraces of men other than her husband without sin. Nor can a husband exchange affection with other women, or reach out to embrace them without sin. Husband and wife must reserve themselves for each other. And that reserve cannot be broken through without sin. Their persons are sacred to each other, even as every person is sacred according to civil law. If a business man places his hand affectionately on the shoulder of a typist, she can sue him at law, and get damages, if she resents the liberty he has presumed to take. Quite recently a Judge stated in a court case that every intentional touch by one person of another against that person's will is an assault according to law, however trivial and technical it may be. And I say that if civil law justly safeguards each individual from assault, then married people, since they have given themselves to each other, have the right to demand that each will reject and resist every intentional liberty attempted by any third party. Certainly no man has the right to lay his hand upon the wife of another man; and no woman upon the husband of another woman. The moral sense may be so dead in some people that they will persuade themselves that there is nothing wrong with such conduct. But that does not make such conduct right. And Catholic theology definitely teaches that such liberties are sinful. Free love is immoral in itself; where people are concerned who are vowed to one another, it involves the additional sin of injustice.

Firstly I quarrel with the very expression "Companionate Marriage." Since the parties to such cohabitation are not married, why call it marriage? The expression is merely an effort to give a respectable name to a disreputable union. It is not a marriage, and the parties will soon be looking round for other companions. Secondly, such unions could not possibly prevent unhappy marriages. They might prevent any marriage, but they cannot guarantee freedom from unhappiness, should a marriage really take place. Marriage is not a momentary thing, but a durable state. And things can go wrong despite a long companionate experiment just as they can go wrong despite an equally long and quite honorable courtship. Thirdly, Christ declared marriage to be a permanent sacramental contract binding people until death. That is the only kind of marriage possible for Christians. If you want to substitute illicit and immoral temporary relationships, at least have the honesty not to call them marriages, or Christian, or progress. Finally, the Church does not bind people to a mistaken union for life. The Church merely declares the Christian character of marriage as a permanent state in life. They are those who enter this state who bind themselves one to the other. And to avoid making a mistake they should give due thought and consideration to the matter. If they do contract marriage, future difficulties and trials do not mean that the marriage was a mistake. They are incidental to life in this world, and provide scope for the exercise of Christian virtue. Of course this is the crux of the whole question. People who are not really Christians, and have no will to practice virtue, desire to abolish Christian standards. They would prefer a series of immoral companionships, hypocritically tacking on to them the title of marriage to preserve some outward appearance of respectability. It is to the credit of the Catholic Church that she condemns absolutely such retrogressive and pagan ideas of morality.

&&

Radio Replies Volume Three: Marriage and Divorce

Firstly, the One who first laid emphasis upon the words "Let no man put asunder" was Christ; and, as God, he foresaw all the consequences of that law, yet thought fit to give it. His own disciples foresaw the difficulties, and said to Him: "If the case be so, it is not expedient to marry at all." And Christ did not deny the possibility of hardship in certain cases. Secondly, Mr. Justice Swift is wrong in thinking that only judges in a divorce court see the broken lives, pain and suf-fering, and misery of years that these cases mean. Priests see far more cases than those that actually arrive at the divorce courts. They are constantly dealing with domestic trials; and they have seen far more pain and suffering, broken lives and misery of years through the facility with which divorce can be obtained than through the rigid observance of Christ's law forbidding divorce. I could amplify that, did time permit. But it will be enough to add that the sum-total of marital happiness has certainly not increased in a world widely accepting divorce, and crying out for its still further extension. Emotion over particular cases has simply rendered the judge blind to universal issues.

The new ideas mean the abandoning of Christianity. Of course, it would not do to say so openly. Ours is a Christian civilization. We are not pagans. So the old trick is employed by speaking of the sacerdotal concept instead of the Christian concept of marriage. But one must prove that what is termed the sacerdotal concept is not the Christian concept. Again, since your author mentions a conflict between but two concepts, the sacerdotal and the secular, will he tell us that the secular concept is the truly Christian concept, and that it is the sacerdotal concept which is un-Christian ?

In other words, the question is as to whether marriage is still to be regarded as a sacrament integral to the Christian religion, or merely a social agreement as unconnected with that religion as a partnership in business. What you call the sacerdotal view is that marriage is a Christian Sacrament; the secular view is that it is merely a civil and rescindable partnership having no real connection with the Christian religion. So the problem is, after all, are we to take the Christian view of marriage, or not?

Such a marriage would be binding until the death of one of the parties.

That second marriage was not a true marriage in the sight of God. Nor could it have taken place in a Catholic Church, for no priest could assist at the second marriage of a divorced person whose former partner is still living.

The Church cannot refuse to save a soul, but souls can refuse to save themselves. In this case, the second, marriage is not valid, and it is not lawful for her to live with her second husband as his wife. If she insists upon continuing as the wife of the second man, the Church cannot admit her to the Sacraments, even as her Catholic husband cannot be admitted to them.

If you believe that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, you should accept her verdict that the first marriage is binding. The Church does not teach that all marriages between non-Catholics are null and void. She legislates for her own subjects. While she declares that God's legislation does bind all non-Catholics she does not make laws for those who are not Christians and modifies her legislation in cases of its application to Christians who are not Catholics. If two Anglicans marry, whether in the Anglican Church or merely in a Registry Office, that marriage is valid and binding, and death alone can break it in the sight of God.

She does not acknowledge the laws of the Church of England. She acknowledges her own laws, and her own laws say that, whilst Catholics cannot contract valid marriage outside their Church, Protestants can, provided both parties are Protestants, and this, whether they marry in their Protestant Church, or merely in the Registry Office. In the case you give, an Anglican woman married an Anglican man in the Anglican Church. That marriage was binding in conscience and still is, despite the civil divorce. The second marriage is, therefore, invalid. The Church is not losing two souls by her attitude. The two souls are forfeiting the privileges of the Catholic Faith by their determination to continue in an unlawful union instead of separating, as they should, from each other.

No. The Church is here to keep God's law, not to break it. And it is the law of God, taught by Christ, that if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. The Church can't say that it is all right for her to continue as she is when it's all wrong. Her first marriage is valid, and unless she and her present partner agree to live separately, she cannot be received into the Church. We can't have it both ways, proud of our Church because of its fidelity to the law of Christ forbidding divorce, yet desiring her to relax her fidelity when convenient.

Yes. The two in question should agree to live separately. The Catholic man should return to the practice of his religion. The non-Catholic woman should receive instruction and be received into the Church.

That is true. Often enough a marriage accepted as valid by civil law lacks the conditions required for validity according to the laws of the Christian religion. If, upon request, and after full inquiry into all the circumstances, Rome grants a decree of nullity in such a case, she merely declares that such a marriage was null and void from the very beginning, and never was binding in conscience. Such a decree breaks no existing bond of marriage, simply declares that the parties to it are and have always been single people so far as that particular contract is concerned, and tells them that they are free to enter into a valid marriage with anyone free to marry.

She recognizes it as a valid matrimonial contract, but does not grant that it has the peculiar religious quality of a Christian Sacrament.

It is true that Rome could not issue a decree of "nullity from the very beginning" in such a case. But, since the first marriage was not a Sacrament, the Church using what is known as the Pauline privilege as taught by Saint Paul designates it as a valid contract but not a Sacramental union and, therefore, has the power to dissolve the purely natural bond in favor of the Christian Faith should one of the parties later become a Catholic and desire to marry a Catholic.

No. For the Church declares that, if two baptized Protestants contract marriage, they contract a valid Christian and Sacramental marriage wherever it takes place. And that Sacramental marriage is binding in Christian law until the death of one of the parties. The Catholic Church, therefore, could not sanction the divorce and remarriage of such partners, even though they are willing to become Catholics,

On the teaching of the New Testament itself. There it is evident that the merely natural bond may at times give way in favor of a marriage according to the Christian law under special circumstances. For example, a somewhat similar case is given by St. Paul in 1 Cor. VII., 15. There he deals with the case in which a mar-ried person is converted to the Church, but not his or her partner. And St. Paul says that, if the unbelieving partner is willing to live in peace with the believer, the marriage must stand. But, if the unbeliever refuses to live with the believer, and departs, the believer is not under servitude in such a case. That is, the believer is released from the obligations of the first marriage if he desires to marry a fellow believer in the Christian religion. Thus the natural bond of a former marriage with a non-Christian would give way in favor of the Christian Sacrament of Marriage with a fellow Christian. The foundation for the power of the Church to dis-solve the merely natural bond of marriage with a non-Christian who is unwilling to continue to fulfill marriage obligations is clear.

No. Every case is weighed on its own merits independently of the financial circumstances of the persons concerned. If the first marriage were a true Christian marriage and both parties were still living, not all the money in the world could avail to secure permission from the Catholic Church for another marriage. Even today, as I am answering your inquiry, the news has come that the Pope has refused to sanction any second marriage of Princess Charlotte of Monaco. She married Prince Pierre de Polignac, but got a civil divorce from him two years ago. She was anxious to remarry, and her father, Prince Louis of Monaco, made a special journey to Rome to ask permission for her to remarry. The case was weighed on its merits. The Papal decision was that her first marriage was undoubtedly valid and that civil divorce could not give a right to a second marriage so long as both parties still live. Money and social standing do not weigh with the Roman Tribunal, If applicants for a decision can pay the legal expenses involved they are requested to do so. If they cannot, a reduction is granted, or even a total remission. And those able to pay the expenses are not in the least more likely to get the decision they want. All depends upon the evidence itself. A study of the cases submitted during the ten years from 1920 to 1930 shows that, whilst sixty-six per cent of those who could pay got a favorable decision, eighty-nine per cent of those who could not pay were granted the verdict they desired.