Friends and Coworkers

[JoeFreedom]

I have a coworker who is a friend that is not Catholic, but Protestant (I forget which denomination). He was married and got divorced. He has two young kids. He is now dating someone at work, and I can only assume his plans are to get married to her. I have to work with him all the time and he constantly talks about her and what they did over the weekend. When he was having troubles in his initial marriage, I tried to help him so that he wouldn’t end up splitting and ultimately getting divorced, but I can’t make that decision, that was his.

Now every time he talks about her, or I see them together, which is often, I want to say to him something like, “you know you can’t just divorce and remarry who ever and when ever you want…” but I don’t know if it’s my place and in some sense don’t want to lose his friendship, but at the same time, I know his soul is in jeopardy and my friendship is not important.

I don’t also want to be running around pointing out people’s sins either. I know we are called to evangelize, but the way to do it is by example. Am I doing the right thing by not saying anything or not?

 

[Della]

I think you’re right to not interfer. This man is a Protestant who is not bound by canon law. If his faith community sanctions divorce and remarriage, then he is free to do so according to his understanding. If he ever became Catholic, of course he’d have to sort it all out according to Church law.

Having said that, you may want to drop the hint that you’re not that interested in all the small doings of his new love interest and what they did over the weekend. Nicely and kindly, you may wish to get him to tone it down. Change the subject or make an excuse to leave or something along those lines whenever he starts in on his wonderful new relationship.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think you’re right to not interfer. This man is a Protestant who is not bound by canon law. If his faith community sanctions divorce and remarriage, then he is free to do so according to his understanding. If he ever became Catholic, of course he’d have to sort it all out according to Church law.

Yes, but it isn’t only canon law that forbids divorce and remarriage. Christ Himself forbids remarriage, thus it is Divine Law, which this fellow is under as much as any Catholic. All baptized Christians are “committing adultery” by engaging in sexual relations with anyone other than their first spouse (unless they remarry after the first spouse has passed away).

This is no different than a Christian group happening to approve of abortion. Just b/c that “faith community sanctions” abortion doesn’t mean their members abortions are not gravely immoral acts.

 

[Della]

Yes, but it isn’t only canon law that forbids divorce and remarriage. Christ Himself forbids remarriage, thus it is Divine Law, which this fellow is under as much as any Catholic. All baptized Christians are “committing adultery” by engaging in sexual relations with anyone other than their first spouse (unless they remarry after the first spouse has passed away).

This is no different than a Christian group happening to approve of abortion. Just b/c that “faith community sanctions” abortion doesn’t mean their members abortions are not gravely immoral acts.

Non-Catholic Christians are not subject to the Church’s canon law. And abortion is not the same thing as divorcing and remarrying. Sure, we Catholics know that divorce and remarriage without a declaration that no first marriage had taken place is a mortal sin, but most Protestants do not, thus their culpability is not the same as one who does know. We cannot tell Protestants that they have to abide by canon law. We can tell them to consider Jesus’ words in Scripture, but many interpret his words quite differently and so feel free to remarry. It’s a sad reality, but there it is.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Non-Catholic Christians are not subject to the Church’s canon law. And abortion is not the same thing as divorcing and remarrying. Sure, we Catholics know that divorce and remarriage without a declaration that no first marriage had taken place is a mortal sin, but most Protestants do not, thus their culpability is not the same as one who does know. We cannot tell Protestants that they have to abide by canon law. We can tell them to consider Jesus’ words in Scripture, but many interpret his words quite differently and so feel free to remarry. It’s a sad reality, but there it is.

Please, I *truly *mean no disrespect to anyone here, as this is just a simple observation, but it is no wonder why apologetics are needed for our faith. It is so complex and so misunderstood and even those with the best intentions (like myself), can find ourselves getting so many different answers and falling into scrupulosity (like myself); and by no means am I singling out anyone here or this specific conversation, as this is simply an observation in general. I DO truly want to learn the fullness of faith, which is one reason why I’m here and thank the Lord that there are so many great Catholics here who provide wonder answers and conversations and thoughts and resources…

With that said, if the Protestant’s particular faith believed in valid marriages (like ours does), then would this person be in a “sort of state of mortal sin”? And I say sort of because I know our faith is the only one that believes in categorizing sin like that?

Secondly, if the person’s faith did not have a belief in valid marriages or this person was simply not aware, this would be a good case (all other things equal, meaning that they were seeking God and doing their best, to their knowledge to please God, but still sinning) for Purgatory. Yes?

 

[PietroPaolo]

Non-Catholic Christians are not subject to the Church’s canon law. And abortion is not the same thing as divorcing and remarrying. Sure, we Catholics know that divorce and remarriage without a declaration that no first marriage had taken place is a mortal sin, but most Protestants do not, thus their culpability is not the same as one who does know. We cannot tell Protestants that they have to abide by canon law. We can tell them to consider Jesus’ words in Scripture, but many interpret his words quite differently and so feel free to remarry. It’s a sad reality, but there it is.

It’s not a question of canon law. It’s a question of the moral law as defined by Jesus Christ himself. Even the earliest Christians, who Jesus directly addressed were forbidden to remarry, even without the juridical structure of official canon law. Divorce and remarriage isn’t like a Catholic marrying outside of the Church without proper dispensation (something that invalidates the marriage). Such is only a violation of canon law and thus only applies to Catholics. Remarrying with a still living first spouse is a violation of the Divine Moral Law (and canon law). As all Christians are under the first they are still required to obstain from remarrying, even though they are not subject to canon law.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear.

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.” (2382)

and

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: **the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. **(2384)

Nothing here about “only for Catholics.”

Canon law recognizes that divorced, baptized Christians can’t remarry, but doesn’t impose this. Thus, all baptized Christians are forbidden, by God (not canon law) to remarry, including the OP’s friend.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Please, I *truly *mean no disrespect to anyone here, as this is just a simple observation, but it is no wonder why apologetics are needed for our faith. It is so complex and so misunderstood and even those with the best intentions (like myself), can find ourselves getting so many different answers and falling into scrupulosity (like myself); and by no means am I singling out anyone here or this specific conversation, as this is simply an observation in general. I DO truly want to learn the fullness of faith, which is one reason why I’m here and thank the Lord that there are so many great Catholics here who provide wonder answers and conversations and thoughts and resources…

With that said, if the Protestant’s particular faith believed in valid marriages (like ours does), then would this person be in a “sort of state of mortal sin”? And I say sort of because I know our faith is the only one that believes in categorizing sin like that?

Secondly, if the person’s faith did not have a belief in valid marriages or this person was simply not aware, this would be a good case (all other things equal, meaning that they were seeking God and doing their best, to their knowledge to please God, but still sinning) for Purgatory. Yes?

Hi Joe,

Purgatory is where we go to finish being perfected before entering Heaven. Purgatory isn’t a place where unrepentant sinners go if they have an excuse for their sins. If someone is invisibly ignorant of a moral precept, then it is no sin and no “purgatory time” is required vs. someone who knew and repented. However, it is important to remember that

"Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. (1860)

Thus, no one, regardless of their “faith community’s” teachings, can plead ignorance to the moral law, including committing adultery by remarriage (between baptized Christians).

 

[Della]

Hi Joe,

Purgatory is where we go to finish being perfected before entering Heaven. Purgatory isn’t a place where unrepentant sinners go if they have an excuse for their sins. If someone is invisibly ignorant of a moral precept, then it is no sin and no “purgatory time” is required vs. someone who knew and repented. However, it is important to remember that

"Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. (1860)

Thus, no one, regardless of their “faith community’s” teachings, can plead ignorance to the moral law, including committing adultery by remarriage (between baptized Christians).

The problem is, you see, that your Protestant friend truly believes that he can remarry if his wife was unfaithful to him or other such extenuating circumstances. Therefore, he is less culpable than those who know that divorce and remarriage is a grave sin unless they have been granted a declaration that no marriage had taken place in the first marriage.

Moral precepts have become clouded in many people’s minds, even Catholics, because society doesn’t support the Church’s teachings. Nor can a non-Catholic be held to canon law, no matter what sin he has commited. His judgment before God is not for anyone to determine except God himself. The moral precept that a man cannot remarry after obtaining a divorce isn’t one of that clear to many when even the Israelites allowed it. Of course, Jesus calls us to a higher understanding and a stricter observance of the moral law, but not everyone is aware of that, nor do they necessarily want to hear it.

We know that he is putting his soul in danger, but he’s not aware of that, nor does it seem likely that he would be open to hearing that at this stage when he is so ga-ga over his new gf. It’s a delicate situation for all these reasons, which is why I suggested you let it go. Now, if he should ask you about the legitimacy of his new relationship, then you are certainly free to tell him. If not, you’ll most likely drive him farther away from hearing the truth if you try to “impose” your moral standard on him–at least that’s the way he’d probably see it. After counseling him you know him better than we do, so only you can know what he is open to hearing. You can pray for him and be a friend, and that’s a lot. You don’t need to condone his new relationship or listen to him ranting on about it.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The problem is, you see, that your Protestant friend truly believes that he can remarry if his wife was unfaithful to him or other such extenuating circumstances. Therefore, he is less culpable than those who know that divorce and remarriage is a grave sin unless they have been granted a declaration that no marriage had taken place in the first marriage.

Moral precepts have become clouded in many people’s minds, even Catholics, because society doesn’t support the Church’s teachings. Nor can a non-Catholic be held to canon law, no matter what sin he has commited. His judgment before God is not for anyone to determine except God himself. The moral precept that a man cannot remarry after obtaining a divorce isn’t one of that clear to many when even the Israelites allowed it. Of course, Jesus calls us to a higher understanding and a stricter observance of the moral law, but not everyone is aware of that, nor do they necessarily want to hear it.

We know that he is putting his soul in danger, but he’s not aware of that, nor does it seem likely that he would be open to hearing that at this stage when he is so ga-ga over his new gf. It’s a delicate situation for all these reasons, which is why I suggested you let it go. Now, if he should ask you about the legitimacy of his new relationship, then you are certainly free to tell him. If not, you’ll most likely drive him farther away from hearing the truth if you try to “impose” your moral standard on him–at least that’s the way he’d probably see it. After counseling him you know him better than we do, so only you can know what he is open to hearing. You can pray for him and be a friend, and that’s a lot. You don’t need to condone his new relationship or listen to him ranting on about it.

Not agreeing with an aspect of the moral law, or living in a society that doesn’t agree with an aspect of the moral law, isn’t a “free sin pass”. Do you think American southerners were not sinning when treating their fellow human beings as chattel, simply because they were of African origin, b/c they didn’t believe in equal racial rights? Or, is a misogynist okay when he beats women b/c he believes that is a good thing (and lives in a society where it is generally seen as okay?) Or were the Nazi’s not culpable for killing Jews b/c they thought they were doing humanity a favor?

Of course not. That is why the Catechism explicitly limits the “ignorance exception” to cases not involving a violation of the moral law (bolded above).

A Protestant wouldn’t be held accountable for missing Mass each Sunday, b/c that is a “precept of the Church” not a part of the moral law. However, everyone is culpable for breaking the moral law, which God has written on everyone’s heart.

You seem to be suggesting that the only sin is one where you violate your (or your “faith community’s”) beliefs. This is in direct opposition to the Catechism. Some things we might not want to agree with, but, deep inside, we all know are wrong. This is what the CCC calls “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart” which it says “do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” (1859).

 

[Della]

I am talking about culpablity and how JoeFreedom may want to handle his friend’s situation. His friend apparently doesn’t acknowledge that his isn’t free to date/remarry. That’s the reality. Now, the question is, how involved should JF become and what, if anything, should he say.

We need to remember that along with being implanted with moral knowledge, we are also fallen creatures who are very good at obscuring that knowledge or ignoring it because our nature is corrupted, our intellect darkened, and our will weakened by original sin. If a Protestant is taught that he can remarry, how is he to know any better? Especially when that is exactly what he wants to hear? How culpable is he? Only God can know how culpable he is, not us. I stated quite clearly that JF’s friend is putting his soul in mortal danger. The important thing is how can JF help him, not what his friend ought to know/not know.

As to the validity of Protestant remarriages, for Protestants it’s not even an issue. Would that it were. We cannot expect them to hold to Church laws they don’t reconize as binding on them. Sure, they shouldn’t divorce and remarry, but since they do, we have to deal with that on their own ground unless and until they acknowledge that it’s a sin to engage in that behavior. Since JF is there, and we aren’t, we can pray for him, and his friend, but as to how JF handles it, he knows that better about that than people talking about it on the internet.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I stated quite clearly that JF’s friend is putting his soul in mortal danger. The important thing is how can JF help him, not what his friend ought to know/not know.

I think you’re right to not interfere. This man is a Protestant who is not bound by canon law. If his faith community sanctions divorce and remarriage, then he is free to do so according to his understanding. If he ever became Catholic, of course he’d have to sort it all out according to Church law.

Having said that, you may want to drop the hint that you’re not that interested in all the small doings of his new love interest and what they did over the weekend. Nicely and kindly, you may wish to get him to tone it down. Change the subject or make an excuse to leave or something along those lines whenever he starts in on his wonderful new relationship.

Della, I think your point about not interfering is what my original intentions were. I’m glad you agree. It’s difficult to want to evangelize, especially when a lot of times I hear, (and often times from priests, and there are a few verses in the bible) is the best way to evangelize is to live the life Christ wanted, and not have to say anything. That often times seems counter-intuitive to me, b/c without saying anything, people will never know. But I’m learning now that it is not I that can change things, (this is true for all things secular as well), that it is the Holy Spirit who does.

If he ever does ask me to do stuff with them, or when of if they eventually get married and I’m asked to go, I’ll say no and explain why. But until then, or unless he asks (which I doubt), I will hold my tongue and when he starts to talk about him and his girlfriend, politely change the subject.