Catechism 1650 Brother and Sister origin

[Bookcat]

W

They would live according to the objective truth.

They are not married to each other -so they would not be living as married persons (married to each other…)

Should they be romantic with them?

No more than they would be with their sibling.

No they are married to another and are to live accordingly.

 

[bm69]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm69
I didn’t catch what ‘your tradition’ was or meant.

I suspect that it isn’t mentioned because by Canon law (Roman Catholic - Latin Rite) it wouldn’t be a marriage.

First, there are several examples of continent marriages by saints in our tradition. One example is St. Kinga of Poland, who, after marrying Prince Boleslaw of Poland, convinced him to respect a vow of virginity she had previously made. Two months into their marriage, they solemnly pledged complete continence to their bishop, and never consummated their marriage. They were still married, though. St. Etheldreda of Northumbria had an unconsummated marriage with her husband due to a previous vow of virginity, as did St. Cecilia in her marriage to Valerian, and St. Mary in her marriage to St. Joseph. All of these lived lives of complete continence with their husbands from the time of their marriage to the time of their deaths. (Well, St. Etheldreda’s husband divorced her after he grew tired of his pledge of continence, and then he married someone else, so I guess he doesn’t count. But she does.) And their marriages were valid.

A pledge of continence does not invalidate the marriage if both spouses agree to it. Canon Law does not say that a marriage is invalid if it is not consummated. Instead, it says the opposite: “A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated.” (Canon 1061)

Unconsummated marriages Are valid. (Or can be, anyway, if the other conditions are met.) A continent marriage is a valid and true marriage. They can, however, be dissolved: “For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons.” (Canon 1142) Note: this says “dissolved,” not “annulled.” They cannot be annulled simply on the grounds that they are unconsummated for the very simple reason that only invalid marriages can be annulled, and an unconsummated marriage is not an invalid marriage. (Unless there was some other defect involved.) But they can be dissolved for various reasons, proving that it is possible for a Catholic to get a valid marriage dissolved (a real divorce – not an annulment) so long as the appropriate conditions are met.

Thanks for the clarification. The citations really help.

So, although they vow to be oriented towards the procreative act and procreation, they agree not to? I’m not sure I see how that works pre-nuptial. I could see them changing their minds post-nuptial and before consummation. That would be a valid marriage, but could be dissolved. I like to think of it as the vows making the contract and the consummation as ratifying it - that’s probably really not correct, but reminds me of the idea of a two stage process to seal the deal. This is also the reason why Mary and Joseph were actually married, but he could have legally divorced her but then didn’t; ie. they had made the contract (vows) but not lived together (where consummation takes place). Joseph and Mary being already ‘married’ but not having consummated their marriage could then also agree to abstinance without nullifying their original vows, with the added bonus in this case and those who adopt instead, of still being oriented towards raising children, if not procreating their own.

Its a little strange and unusual for married couples to do that since that is not the orientation of one of the essential goals of marriage and the bonum prolus, I think you’d agree that its the exception, not the rule. And I think it is too easily abused today in our divorcist culture by those who simply do not want to be faithful to their marriage vows. I’ve already sited Augustine and Ezra regarding the ‘for the sake of the children’ argument.

 

[bm69]

Should they be romantic with them?

No more than they would be with their sibling.

No they are married to another and are to live accordingly.

OK, no french kissing. Or holding hands and staring into each other’s eyes, etc. That’s a little clearer. But…

I don’t have a marriage license with my sister - do you have a marriage license with your sibling?
But seriously, would you include then that they should not have a marriage license? That would mean they’d have to get divorced even if they then continued to co-habitat, correct?

If you said yes, they should not have a marriage license and should divorce so as to really live as BS, then the BS section of 1650 no longer would apply because they’re no longer qualify as ‘divorced and remarried’. (Even with a very loose interpretation of adultery, they’d still have to practice continence to avoid adultery and being barred from receiving the Eucharist.)

But 1650 is silent on those who are **only **civilly divorced. (Although divorce is an objective moral evil, being divorced does not in itself make one sinful - they could be the victim of divorce and did not desire it but could not prevent it (no-fault divorce laws in US), therefor they would not be barred from receiveing the Eucharist for this reason.)

If you said no, they can keep their marriage license, then your saying that there are some things which are clearly behaviors reserved for married people, a marriage license in this example, that they do not have to correct and could still be in compliance with 1650.

How do you reconcile your application of 1650 BS as you stated above with the retention of a marriage license? I don’t see how it can be done honestly.

Keep in mind that a marriage license is a legal document filed with the public records office. It is a public declaration made in the most public and formal way to validate that these two persons are married with all the rights and privileges to which that status entitles them. It completely changes fundamental civil aspects of one’s life. One’s legal state is transformed in the most profoundly fundamental way. Its not just a piece of paper.

 

[bm69]

(Also, there is a key difference to keep in mind in this thread. The BS policy regards those who are already married and living in adultery having “civilly: divorced and remarried”, as opposed to those saints who were validly married and yet lived in continence. The latter is validly married, the former is not.)

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t have a marriage license with my sister - do you have a marriage license with your sibling?
But seriously, would you include then that they should not have a marriage license?

That I do not know. That is getting into legal matters …which too can involve the Children…their Pastor could guide them on that.

But the main point is that they are not married to each other in reality before God.

They ought not be behaving with each other as if they were…

 

[Bookcat]

(Also, there is a key difference to keep in mind in this thread. The BS policy regards those who are already married and living in adultery having “civilly: divorced and remarried”, as opposed to those saints who were validly married and yet lived in continence. The latter is validly married, the former is not.)

Yes two different cases …and by the way the do not need to be Saints in the canonized sense.

Keep in mind too - an important correction - those who have repented and are now living as ‘brother and sister’ are not ‘living in adultery’.

 

[bm69]

Re: BS meaning only sexual continence, I think then that you actually DO agree with me when I said that the 1650 BS policy only requires ‘sexual continence’. I said sexual continence, and I think you said it was not just sexual continence. So perhaps a better term would be no ‘eros’ form of love between them, as there should be no ‘eros’ form of love between siblings. Then we would probably agree the interpretation of what the 1650 ‘continence’ term means in practicality according to those who use the BS analogy.

But when one is bound to someone who is not their spouse, they are in a state of mortal sin. So just going to confession to repent of the physical betrayal already committed does not absolve them since they have no intention of changing their state - they still won’t repent from being bound to someone who is not their spouse.

But even if they do not have ‘eros’ love anymore, this still leaves the adulterous bond in place - ie. the civil marriage, which is contrary to the sign of Christ and the church. It is a state which is anti-marriage since it is anti-conjugal - ie. against the valid bond, and obstructs and mocks that bond. If legal jurisprudence and St. Thomas tell us that the bond is what is at the center of the fidei, and that the physical faithfulness is only the physical aspect of the bond, then the bond, the union, is still offended by a marriage license, etc. That license secures division from the union of the valid marriage. Conversely, if only the ‘eros’ orientation and/or behavior is what does or does not make adultery or unfaithfulness, then there is no meaning to the bond, the union, ie. marriage as an institution beyond a contract the guarantees sexual access.

St. Paul (1 Cor 7) specifically says, the Lord says that a wife if she separates must remain single ie. unmarried. He didn’t say anything about sexual continence or no ‘eros’ love, even though he had just talked about mutual sexual abstinence for the sake of prayer a few lines previously. The greek word used refers to the state of not being in a union with anyone else or she must reconcile with her husband. He’s not referring to just an act or behaviors/attitudes of ‘eros’ love, but to the social construct, the institution, her marital state.

“They are no longer two, but one” doesn’t just mean they are only one when they are conceiving children and then go back to being two when they are apart. No, being ‘one’ now is a permanent change of state, ie. a bond is formed between them. It is also a sacramental bond for example for two Catholics by virtue of their baptism. So how can an anti-bond of a civil marriage not be anything but unfaithfulness towards the bond, the union, the conjugality of marriage?

I don’t see how one can say that a marriage license, which publicly and formally denies the valid marriage as well as insults it by claiming to be married to another can be considered faithfulness towards the valid bond. It can only be described as unfaithfulness towards the bond of marriage, both the valid marriage in particular, and marriage in general. The latter because it claims that the vows taken in the civil marriage are genuine. But this is simply impossible since in doing so they prove themselves a liar. Here’s how: I say, ‘till death do us part’ with my wife. Then I divorce and civilly remarry another saying, ‘till death do us part’ to a second person. It is presumed that I mean it the first time and its valid consent in that I’m being honest. But it can NEVER be honest in the second instance because it breaks the first vow as soon as it is uttered to the second person - ie. how can I say to the second person that I promise to be exclusive with them for the rest of my life when I made the same promise of permanent exclusivity to the first person just a little while ago? - unless the first one dies first, you can’t, its impossible. So the second vow is always a lie and invalid by definition.

I’m still working on translating the aas 72 to see what it says…

 

[bm69]

That I do not know. That is getting into legal matters …which too can involve the Children…their Pastor could guide them on that.

But this IS a legal matter. Law simply is an attempt to clarify reality and how it works. Even moral law like not to commit murder is backed by the reality that we are all made in the image of God and do not have the right to take another’s life through murder. I think it is wrong to dismiss the legal point and then declare that truth is establish. On the contrary, legal matters are indeed about seeking justice which is to be based upon truth.

I also don’t think this is ‘just a legal matter’ as if that can dismiss these things as inconsequential. Indeed, I’ve been talking about theology and logic, not just legal matters. This is a matter of doctrinal soundness and reason, not a matter that is morally relative that can be left up to the subjective whims of a pastor. This is core to the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony itself, which is not up to them to decide, but was given to us by Christ Himself. Adultery is addressed in 3 of the Gospel books, and by St. Paul’s letters, as well as other places in the bible. Marriage is a sign of Christ’s relationship to His bride the church. I don’t think this is a light matter. What is in question by BS is regarding the doctrine of Holy Matrimony itself. Can one be in a state of adultery or only perform an act? Is being civilly married to another demonstrating faithfulness to the one-ness sacramental bond of the valid marriage? It deals directly with matters that are essential and fundamental to the Sacrament.

…which too can involve the Children…

Besides things like the book of Ezra, I can show even just logically how the ‘for the sake of the children’ doesn’t really fly either, but I’ll defer to another discussion if you’re interested in that.

But the main point is that they are not married to each other in reality before God.
They ought not be behaving with each other as if they were…

I agree. But I think we disagree on what is entailed in ‘ought not to be behaving with each other as if they were…’. An IMO the 1650 BS policy I think can clearly be demonstrated does not satisfy the directive you’ve poignantly stated in this quote.

 

[Vico]

…

I’m still working on translating the aas 72 to see what it says…

The state of mortal sin is not defined objectively (material sin) but subjectively.

So those that have repented, but are unable to separate, are lacking free election, so for a grave matter becomes venial sin. Repentance here is demonstrated also with the intention not to repeat it willfully and to avoid the freely chosen near occasions of sin.

Catholic Encyclopedia

Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin.(1)

Catholic Encyclopedia, Sin

Material and formal sin

This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.(1)

(1) O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

AAS 72, Acta Ioannis Pauli Pp. II 1083-1084 [John Paul II, Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops, 7 (Oct. 25, 1980): AAS 72 (1980), 1082.]

Google Translate from Latin:

1. Itaque Synodus, de ministerio pastorali sermonem faciens, prout
   ad illos refertur, qui post divortium novam unionem inierunt, eos
   merita laude coniuges ornavit, qui, licet gravibus afficiantur difficultatibus,
   tamen in propria vita indissolubilitatem matrimonii testantur;
   quorum in vita animadvertit bonum illum nuntium fidelitatis erga
   amorem, qui in Christo habet et virtutem et fundamentum. Praeterea
   Patres Synodi, iterum affirmantes indissolubilitatem conubii et praxim
   Ecclesiae circa non admittendos divortio seiunctos qui contra regulam
   denuo matrimonium temptaverunt ad eucharisticam communionem, Pastores
   et universam communitatem christianam hortantur, ut huiusmodi
   fratres et sorores adiuvent, quos ipsi non censent ab Ecclesia separatos,
   quippe qui vi baptismatis ii possint ac debeant vitam Ecclesiae participare
   orando, verbum audiendo, celebrationi eucharisticae communitatis
   assistendo, caritatem et iustitiam promovendo. Quamquam negandum
   non est tales personas ad sacramentum paenitentiae, si casus fert, recipi
   posse ac deinde ad eucharisticam communionem, cum sese sincero corde
   aperiunt vivendi formae, quae indissolubilitati matrimonii non adversatur,
   nempe cum eiusmodi vir et mulier, qui obligationem separationis
   adimplere non possunt, officium in se suscipiunt omnino continenter
   vivendi, scilicet se abstinendi ab actibus qui solis coniugibus competunt,
   et simul scandalum abest, tamen privatio conciliationis sacramentalis
   cum Deo eos a perseverantia in orando, in paenitentia et caritate exercenda
   minime abstrahat, ut tandem conversionis et salutis gratiam
   consequantur. Ecclesia vero, pro iisdem preces fundens eosque in fide
   ac spe roborando matrem misericordem se praebeat oportet.
2. The Council, therefore, of the pastoral ministry of the word in doing so, in so far as to them who, with a new union after divorce is they made, them, adorned with deserved praise the husband and wife, who, although they are affected by serious difficulties, the indissolubility of marriage, however, bear witness to in his own life; whose life he observed the good news fidelity love, which he hath, and in Christ, the power and the foundation of the. Further Synod, again affirming the indissolubility of marriage and the practice Who are opposed to the Church with regard to the rule of not admitting the divorced and separated married again tried to Eucharistic communion, pastors
   I encourage our Christian community and to the whole, that such a to assist the brothers and sisters, whom they themselves separated from the Church, do not approve of, they ought to be able to participate in the life of the Church, indeed, by virtue of baptism, in prayer, by hearing the Word, the celebration of the communion of the Eucharistic guidelines, to promote the love of God and his righteousness. Despite the undeniable It is not the sacrament of penance to the persons, if the case may be, to be received and from them to be able to receive Holy Communion, in his relationship with a sincere heart, open living form, which does not adversely affect the indissolubility of marriage, that is to say with such a man and a woman, who has the obligation of separation, are not able to fulfill, in complete continence upon themselves the duty of of living, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples, and the scandal is far from the privation of sacramental reconciliation with God’s presence those from perseverance in prayer, and charity is to be exercised in the conversion of in no way departs from the, that in the end the grace of conversion and salvation, obtain. The Church, for the pouring out prayers for them in the same faith, they must offer the prospect of strengthening compassionate mother.

 

[Gorgias]

(Also, there is a key difference to keep in mind in this thread. The BS policy regards those who

Can you do us a favor? Regardless of your opinion of this “pastoral solution”, would you mind stopping calling it “the BS policy”? Having been gently reminded how this reads, and having had the opportunity to call it by a different name (might I suggest “B&S”?), it really does read as if you really do want to make the vulgar reference. And, it’s not cool to run around calling the words of a pope – in fact, the words of a saint! – “BS”…!

Thanks!

 

[Bookcat]

Re: BS meaning only sexual continence, I think then that you actually DO agree with me when I said that the 1650 BS policy only requires ‘sexual continence’.

No.

Not a Canon Lawyer. But no -though a term might be used canonically - that does not mean that they may live otherwise as husband and wife. They are not married to each other and so must live accordingly.

They are repenting of their sin and or the their error (some enter such without knowledge) and are turning towards the Lord and living as they ought. Which does not include living as husband and wife - for they are not married to each other. And which includes living according to the reality that they are married to their actual spouse though they are separated and are in the unusual situation with the children …

 

[Bookcat]

But this IS a legal matter. .

Again they would be guided by the Church as to what they are to do in this regards.

We know that though divorce is wrong (2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.)- yet for legal reasons such as needs of the Children it is tolerated to occur civilly - with the spouses knowing that they are really still married…

2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

Certain things may be tolerated on the civil level …again for the care of the Children etc…while the couple lives the reality that their civil marriage is not a marriage before God.

The Church might have something along those same lines to say regarding those who have then been civilly remarried and have had children…but again this is beyond my knowledge.

Unfortunately the State does not always operate as it ought…and so certain things might need to be tolerated - which in a different society would not need to be.