Very good question!
If he discloses his situation, it would be okay, then?
Under basic theory of civil law, yeah. Can’t claim an injury if you consented to something that wasn’t ultra vires, you weren’t under the effect of fraud or coercion etc.
On the other hand the above, while certainly affecting the justice of the situation, doesn’t resolve the whole darn thing morally. Although it does have some bearing.
For example, the personalist norm isn’t violated by generals sending soldiers on missions the latter don’t understand. I guess it can be said not to be violated by enforcing strict discipline, thus probably taking the reason of the soldier as it should be (obligation) rather than whatever it happens to be due to his potential faults (sad reality). The justification being a shared goal of protection of the homeland. (This is JP2’s example.) For this reason I do believe there’s nothing wrong with common discernment even with some caveats and some account taken of possibly very specific needs of either party that will lead to a non-deal if they aren’t secured. But, we can’t really reconcile dating by people who aren’t able to date or marry, right? I’m not talking about those without nullity decrees, as that’s a question of still being presumed married. But when someone has a solid vetitum (prohibition from ecclesiastic court re: further attempts at marriage), or a potential case of impotence, or some psychic issues that border on grave, then notwithstanding certain presumptions (marriage has the favour of the law as does the individual’s ability to contract it, while at the same time can. 1066 provides an opposite norm by barring celebration unless and until steps are taken to ensure that it’ll be valid), it looks bleak.
After all, we criticise consensual fornication as instrumental use of each by the other, don’t we? This notwithstanding their consent. It would follow that consent doesn’t remove the problem of objectification or some other like injury done through certain irregularities in man and woman relationships.
Given the above, I can’t reconcile situations like having 2 girlfriends or boyfriends or dating multiple people sort-of-intimately (multiple concurrent romantic relationships, basically), especially given that effort is put into building two or more relationships, all but one of which, or even indeed all of which, will have to be interrupted at some point. It’s like building houses to be demolished.
Same way I see seminarians dating. I believe when you’re there, you train to be a priest. Finding out is behind you. You’re actively taking steps to become a priest if you’re in formal training and the natural course of that provides for completion, graduation and ordination. You should be training for celibacy rather than employing last minute checks, I guess.
While this isn’t perhaps rock-solid logic (not a necessary inference, I guess), justifications of seminarian dating, just like justifications of multi-dating, all focus on what’s good for the individual multi-dating or dating while in seminary. This should be telling! Our relationships with other people are not about and are not to be about what’s beneficial to us, screw the rest as long as they are consenting. Implication being that everybody’s job is to look to his own interests.
It must be reiterated that consent doesn’t make it entirely right to use others as tools through which to achieve our personal benefits. Consent doesn’t justify us in acting without heed to the good of the other person in pursuit of our own good (interests and needs rather in this case because our own good cannot be achieved in doing bad things). Thus just because a girl is consenting doesn’t make it right to use her.
I know, it’s semi-futile for her to date him, if you believe that it will end with him leaving.
Yup.
← like this in the face if they don’t take the road you suggest or prescribe.