F
FCGeorge
Guest
Good morning Evelyn,
I’ll take it with a shaker full of salt… and we are to be the salt of the earth… I truly appreciate your caring response!
Let’s take it away from my personal situation…
For example, let’s say that John up and abandons Carol and their children. Carol has committed no grave sin worthy of the abandonment but John is just tired of being “harped on” and asked to do so many chores around the house and he is ready for more free time with the buds drinking the buds. He gets the judge to rule that the children should spend half of their lives outside of the marital home and with him in his new bachelor pad.
John has committed a grave sin (as long as you believe marriage is good and that you should honor vows made before God then this should be common sense).
Now, lets say that Carol truly cares for John’s soul. She really does believe that the job of a wife is to help sanctify her husband. She turns to our Blessed Lord’s instructions in Matthew 18:15-17. She approaches John in true charity and explains how this action is sinful and hurting her and their children. John laughs and leaves. Carol then takes the next step and two brothers in Christ go with her to talk to John once more. John doesn’t laugh this time but says, “God is okay with this, I have prayed to Him and He knows my heart.” He leaves without any indication he will repent. Carol then takes the third step and goes to the Church. At that point the priest should then approach John and listen to his side of the story but be rooted in Truth and in this case there is no morally licit reason for the separation.
The priest should care enough about John’s soul to tell him that he should not be receiving Holy Communion while in the midst of this grave sin. And that if he persists in this grave manifest sin then he will need to deny him Holy Communion.
Please understand that it is not Carol, “Wanting the Church to tell John that he must come back.” That is not where Carol’s heart should be. Rather, it is desiring, out of love of her husband’s soul, that the Church help John see that he has placed himself in the midst of a grave sin that needs repented of to come back into full communion with Christ and His Church.
We have a great example of this from times of old (when perhaps there wasn’t as much emphasis placed on not hurting someone’s feelings)…
This is the story of St. Lupus bartleby.com/210/7/241.html
*He spared no pains to save one lost sheep, and his labours were often crowned with a success which seemed miraculous. Among other instances it is recorded that a certain person of his diocess, named Gallus, had forsaken his wife and withdrawn to Clermont. St. Lupus could not see this soul perish, but wrote to St. Sidonius, then bishop of Clermont, a strong letter so prudently tempered with sweetness, that Gallus by reading it was at once terrified and persuaded, and immediately set out to return to his wife. Upon which St. Sidonius cried out: “What is more wonderful than a single reprimand, which both affrights a sinner into compunction, and makes him love his censor!” *
Notice that St. Lupus understood the truth that the fact that Gallus had “forsakedn his wife and withdrawn to Clermont” meant that his “soul” would “perish” without true repentance. St. Lupus spent the time to write a “strong letter so prudently tempered with sweetness” and the bishop actually understood the eternal ramifications of Gallus’ decision and spent the time to place his stamp on it and get it to Gallus.
This, to me, is what shepherds of our Church should be doing… leaving the 99 to save the 1.
Although, sadly, with divorce now days it is like leaving the 77 to go save the 23.
Again, it is important that the abandoned spouse’s heart is not approaching this as a “lets force my spouse to reconcile.” Actually, for most of the abandoned spouses I correspond with their spouses weren’t that pleasant to begin with so reconciliation is not desired other than for the sake of their spouse’s soul and for the children.
And, as you bring up the very good point, that the reconciliation will likely not happen without a “huge interior change.” I am sure in Gallus’s situation, his “interior” was quite “changed” by the truthfully charitable letter from St. Lupus and the bishop (who is also now a saint!). But notice how his “interior” was “changed.” Gallus was first “terrified” and then “persuaded.” It is an unwillingness to send any type of strong message that might “terrify” someone, or “affright a sinner into compunction” that plagues our therapeutisized culture today.
Thankfully, St. Peter didn’t worry about that at Pentecost. He went out and delivered a “strong” message that “pricked the hearts” of many. And that little mustard seed would begin to grow that very day!!!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING