As secularism in society increases today, faithful Catholics are often faced with the difficult situation of having to decide whether they can support the marital choice of the family member they love because he or she has chosen a ceremony not sanctioned by the Church. Suddenly, Christ’s words about division become real: “Do you think that I have come to give peace to earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Luke 12:51).  

            Division is contrary to the conventional wisdom of our age. The twentieth century witnessed a dramatic shift away from the idea of standing for truth, where reconciliation and dialogue became the ultimate goal. Sociologist Dr. Frank Furedi recently documented in an article in First Things how during the twentieth century, those who firmly defended moral truths were increasingly depicted in society as authoritarian and having symptoms of a sick personality. According to his studies, this shift away from standing for truth became so firmly entrenched that today the educational establishment no longer admits categories of right and wrong, but only talk of pathologies. “For them, non-judgmentalism is a philosophy, a social outlook, worldview, and a professional ethic. It is assumed to be the disposition that all good and responsible people in charge should cultivate.”⁽¹⁾Cf. “The Diseasing of Judgment”, First Things (January 2021), 31-36.

            During this same period, the Catholic Church also adopted a certain paradigm of reconciliation and dialogue, with the hope of cultivating Christian unity, and seeking common solutions to world problems with civil authorities. Pope St. John XXIII famously set the tone for the post-conciliar era at the beginning of the Council when he stated: “Frequently [the Church] condemned them [who were in error] with the greatest severity. In our time, however, the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than severity.” For Catholics, this approach along with the culture shift has meant that standing for moral or theological truths has sometimes become more difficult for fear that they are not subscribing to a new era of dialogue. 

            In this article, I will first look at the Scriptural evidence for Christ’s teaching about dialogue and division, showing that there are limits to dialogue. In the second part of the article, I will examine the moral questions one must consider when family members invite Catholics to attend a marriage that lacks the Church’s canonical form. In these marriage cases, it is necessary to carefully weigh all the factors involved and I argue that when the form of marriage clearly lacks the Church’s blessing, it is necessary to withdraw one’s support, however painful this may be. I will explain this position by using the Church’s teaching on marriage, and commentaries from respected moral theologians who do not dissent from any Church teaching. In the third part of the article, I will examine how to maintain the relationship with the family member. 

Dialogue and Division in the Scriptures

            Christ calls his disciples blessed if they seek to bring reconciliation and peace to the conflicts of the world. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Many saints in the history of the Church had the charism of reconciling both sinners and warring parties. Dialogue is certainly a sign of goodwill and after prayer, must be the first course of action during conflict. 

            Jesus Christ gives us the example. He often patiently taught those who were respectful and yet struggled to understand what He was doing. For example, Simon the Pharisee questions why Christ would let Mary Magdalen wash His feet in public, since, “He would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). Seeing the interior struggle of this good man, Jesus gently invites him to dialogue: “’Simon, I have something to say to you.’ And [Simon] answered, ‘What is it, Teacher?’” (Luke 7:40). He then gives a beautiful teaching on forgiveness and gratitude. There are other examples as well, such as Our Lord’s nocturnal discussion with Nicodemus, who was confused about Christ’s teachings on Baptism (John 3:1-15).

            Christ also saw how those living in sin might benefit from time spent with Him. When He ate with sinners (Matthew 9:10) and was criticized for doing so,  He explained, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (9:12-13).

            At other times, however, Christ will not dialogue, recognizing that drawing a line in the sand was the best approach: “Then He began to upbraid the cities where most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent” (Matthew 11:20). There are numerous other examples such as when He violently cleansed the Temple for its wickedness (Matthew 21:12-13), and then warned the people of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matthew 23). 

            Perhaps most revealing was when the Jews did not understand Christ’s discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6. Instead of trying to patiently explain what is clearly a difficult doctrine to comprehend, the Lord simply let them walk away: “After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’” (John 6:66-67). He saw the hardness of their hearts did not run after them. 

            It is easy to forget that numerous times in Scriptures, Jesus labeled those who were closed to the Gospel truth with pejorative names, such as “dogs” and “swine” (Matthew 7:6), “ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15), “that fox” (Luke 13:32), “whitewashed tombs” filled with unclean bones (Matthew 23:27), “serpents” and “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33). Our Lord prudently recognized when dialogue would be beneficial, and when it when it would be a waste of time. 

            Jesus clearly told His apostles that part of being a good disciple is recognizing when dialogue is not possible: “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust of your feet as you leave that house or town” (Matthew 10:14). 

            Following Christ’s example, the early Church also recognized that sometimes it was necessary to avoid people who obstinately persisted in sin. For example, St. Paul tells the Church at Corinth: “But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one…‘Drive out the wicked person from among you’” (1 Corinthians 5:11-12). St. Paul counsels that the sinner should be warned at least twice before being cut off: “As for a man who is factious (haereticum), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10).

            The Beloved disciple, St. John, who speaks so eloquently of charity in his letters, also states that there are definite limits as to how far the Church should go in appeasing sinners: “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares in his wicked works” (2 John 9-11).  

            From these passages, it is clear that Scripture sometimes recommends dialogue, but at other times, division from the sinner. However, it must be stated that the division must never be rooted in pride and self-righteousness. As St. Gregory writes, “The just man may rightly take a stand against sinners; but that which has its roots in pride is quite different from that which arises from zeal and discipline.”⁽²⁾St. Gregory the Great, Homily 35 on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2-3, quoted in Roman Breviary, Matins, Third Sunday after Pentecost.

Defining the Marriage Scenarios 

            Today, when a family member (assuming he or she is a baptized Catholic) announces that he or she is going to marry without the Church’s blessing, it will normally fall into one of three different categories: 1) simply lacking the necessary canonical form, i.e. getting married “outside the Church”, 2) a union with someone who has already been married and divorced or 3) for lack of a better term, a “gay civil union”.

            While each of these three scenarios has its own reason for invalidity, all three are the same in that they lack the necessary canonical form of marriage. Canon 1108 of the Code of Canon Law states, “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local ordinary or the pastor or a priest or deacon” and, “in the presence of two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the [marriage] canons.” Assuming a dispensation has not been obtained by a couple who have never been married previously, this canon explains why those Catholics who get married “outside the Church” do not have a valid marriage: they lack canonical form.⁽³⁾Canon 1117. This canon from the 1983 code inserted an “innovation”, stating that a baptized Catholic would no longer be bound by the canonical form if he or she had not left the Church “by a formal act”. However, this phrase was eliminated from Canon law by the Vatican in 2009 because of certain problems that arose because of it. In light of Canon 1117, Msgr. William B. Smith, who I quote later in the article, wrote an article in 2003 entitled, “Marrying Outside the Church” where he explains how one might support the marriage of a family member who marries after leaving the Church by a formal act. However, he was also critical of this canonical innovation, saying that it “does not strike me as good law”. Hence, it seems to me that his support for those who marry “outside the Church” would no longer be applicable.

            I think a brief commentary here is necessary. The idea that Catholics are bound to the “canonical form” for a valid marriage can be difficult for Catholics to accept because it is neither derived directly from Scripture nor the natural law. In fact, canonical form is only a recent idea in Church history. Although originally introduced into Church law at the Council of Trent almost 500 years ago, it has only been universally demanded by the Church for the past 100 years.⁽⁴⁾The Decree Tametsi of the Council Trent in 1563 first established canonical form for marriage. Cf. Dr. Edward Peters, “An orientation to the question of canonical form for marriage”. https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-orientation-to-the-question-of-canonical-form-for-marriage/. The vast majority of Church history never knew canonical form. 

            Today, there are arguments out there that the “canonical form” of marriage for Catholics should be removed from the Code of Canon Law. Just as the Church has authority to impose a canonical form on Catholics for what it deems as prudent reasons, so she has the authority to remove it. In the meantime, since for most Catholics it is far too complicated to understand all the reasons that went into establishing canonical form for marriage, abiding by it simply comes down to a matter of faith: Christ gave this authority of binding and loosing to the Petrine ministry (Matthew 16:19) and faithful Catholics must practice obedience.

            The second category, a union with someone who has already been married, is also invalid because of the indissolubility of marriage. There are numerous passages in the New Testament that teach of the indissolubility of marriage but the most clear can be found in St. Luke’s Gospel: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (16:18). Unless there was an annulment, the first marriage is presumed valid, and hence the new union is considered an adulterous relationship. For this reason, the Church teaches:  “When divorced Christians enter a civil union, the Church, faithful to our Lord’s teaching (cf. Mk 10:2-9), cannot give any public or private sign that might seem to legitimize the new union.”⁽⁵⁾Pontifical Council for the Family, The Pastoral Care of the Divorce and Remarried(Pauline Books and Media: Boston, 1997).

            The third category, what is sometimes called “gay unions”, is contrary to the laws of nature and would never be considered a valid marriage. The word matrimony itself comes from a combination of the Latin words mater, meaning mother, and munus, meaning office or duty. Hence, matrimony properly conveys one of the Church’s fundamental truths about the nature of marriage: the office of bearing children. Any party that would knowingly enter into a union that willfully frustrates that intention of having children would contract an invalid marriage.⁽⁶⁾Responding to a family member who chooses a relationship with someone of the same sex is beyond the scope of this article. In this situation, it is best to get in touch with the ministry called Encourage. Cf. https://couragerc.org/for-families/.

The Question of Cooperation in an Invalid Marriage

            The time for a decision comes when the ceremony is planned and family members are invited to attend. The first thing to note in these scenarios is the interior suffering for the follower of Christ who must decide what to do. Writing in 1993, the respected moral theologian Msgr. William Smith from New York summarized the dilemma well: “I doubt that there is any more painful family problem than this, which has only grown worse over the past twenty-five years. The most searing pain involves those Catholic parents who have truly lived and loved the faith as the very center of their lives – and one or more their grown children for whom the faith means little, or nothing; and in the most extreme cases deliberate defiance of the ‘laws of the Church’ is used as a tool to test or taunt the natural family love parents have for their own children.”⁽⁷⁾Msgr. William B. Smith, Modern Moral Problems, ed. Fr. Donald Haggerty (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2012), 126.

            There are two moral questions for the faithful to consider in these situations: Can I cooperate with a form of marriage that is contrary to the faith? How do I avoid scandal? 

            Firstly, as a member of the family, the Catholic party has a responsibility to try to dissuade the couple from entering into a union without the Church’s blessing. One’s relationship with God is always the most important relationship in life. A conversation should be had in a way that avoids all harshness, and communicates both your love and how much you value your relationship with them. Praying about the conversation beforehand is necessary so that the proper balance between truth and love will be communicated. If too much anger is expressed, there is a danger that the principle will be lost and the only thing remembered will be the harshness. 

            If the couple still plans to go forward with the ceremony, the question then arises whether the Catholic should cooperate and attend it. One should first consider that through this public ceremony, the family member is publicly rejecting the Catholic faith, committing a grave sin, and cutting oneself off from reception of the Sacraments. Traditionally, attending such a ceremony was a sin against the virtue of faith.⁽⁸⁾Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 1 (Sheed and Ward: New York, 1938), 285. The pre-conciliar manuals were also rooted in an ecumenical approach that was far more restrictive, which prohibited Catholics from attending any non-Catholic ceremony. However, even with post-conciliar emphasis on ecumenism, the principle still holds that getting married “outside the Church” is a public act contrary to the faith. Every disciple of Jesus Christ by his or her baptism is called to witness to the faith and it is hard to see how attending the ceremony would be anything less than approval. The moral principle used by moral theologians in this situation is “presence means consent”.⁽⁹⁾Smith, 127. Moral theologian Dr. Germain Grisez explains the principle in this way: “You could hardly attend without seeming to approve unless you made your disapproval clear to everyone concerned, which would very likely be more alienating than simply staying away.”⁽¹⁰⁾Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus: Difficult Moral Questions,vol. 3 (Franciscan Press: Quincy, Illinois, 1997), 172-173.

            Once again, a conversation would be needed where you explain that you feel bound in conscience not to attend. However, this does not mean that you are cutting them off. He or she will always be your son or daughter, brother or sister, or cousin, and you want to maintain that relationship. Grisez explains, “Tell them that you realize your course of action will cause them pain, as it does you, and express your regret about that. You should try to dissuade them from proceeding but make no threats. Be prepared to remain calm and gentle even if they become angry and abusive.”⁽¹¹⁾Grisez, 173.

            Some might argue that it is necessary to appease those who have rejected the faith, and by attending the ceremony, it is at least keeping the door open to some future time when the family member would seek to reconcile with the Church. Certainly, maintaining the relationship is one of the important factors in this decision but this is a secondary element in the moral decision.⁽¹²⁾The question of the relationship is a part of the “circumstance” of the moral decision. The circumstances can increase or decrease the agent’s responsibility, or the goodness or the wickedness of an act, but it, “cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1754. The matter of the moral question is whether or not attending the ceremony is a sin against the faith.⁽¹³⁾The matter of the moral act is called the “object of the act”, where “reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1751. It is difficult to imagine how a faithful Catholic could attend and truly celebrate this act which has such disastrous consequences for the loved one’s soul. If one loves God, how can he or she joyfully celebrate the family member’s formal break with the good Lord?

            There is also the danger here that dialogue and hopeful reconciliation can simply become a façade for inaction and moral compromise. The appeasement approach runs the risk of allowing a deeper complacency toward the faith to set in not only for the couple, but also among extended family members and neighbors. 

            Here is where the second issue arises: Scandal. “Scandal” is a specific term in moral theology that goes beyond simply shock or upset. The Catechism teaches: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil…[or] even draws his brother into spiritual death.”⁽¹⁴⁾Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2284. In other words, one’s actions always have an effect on the community. In this case, getting married without the Church’s blessing and attending the ceremony communicates the idea that the Catholic Faith is unimportant. Within the family, younger siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, grandchildren will not fail to grasp this rejection of the Catholic faith. There is a grave danger here of cultivating long term indifference toward faith throughout the family and community. 

            Our Lord’s words apply to this situation: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). The Catholic who gets married outside the Church is only furthering the growth of secularism, setting up a world for the next generation where the Catholic faith is not necessary, and Our Lord promises that those who cause this loss of faith will be held accountable. 

Maintaining the Relationship

            Finally, the question for the faithful Catholic is how to maintain the relationship once a family member decides to pursue a marriage without the Church’s blessing. As Msgr. Smith writes, “Keeping, or trying to keep, family bonds of love and friendship intact remains an important value too.” More specifically, should a faithful Catholic who will not attend the ceremony perhaps attend the party afterwards? What about anniversaries? There is a variety of opinions among moral theologians on this question. Here I will let Dr. Grisez and Msgr. Smith explain their opinions in their own words, which may be helpful for those struggling to find the prudent course of action.

            Dr. Grisez asserts that family members, “should not help organize, pay for, or participate in the wedding ceremony or any of the celebrations connected with it. I do not think you should give the couple a wedding gift…or do anything else that would be inappropriate if they were simply setting up housekeeping together without any pretense of marrying.”⁽¹⁵⁾Grisez, 172-173. He further counsels the parents that they should consider communicating with the would-be-in law’s parents: “[T]ell them that you are not motivated by any antagonism…and that you regret any pain or inconvenience your noncooperation with the wedding will cause them.”

            Msgr. Smith differs from Dr. Grisez and thinks that one may attend the reception afterwards: “Explaining (not advertising) your absence, if asked, together with gift-giving, even attending a reception or party afterward would not, in my opinion, cause scandal in most cases.” However, he acknowledges: “On this matter, moralists are divided; some hold that one should not give gifts or attend a reception. But most wedding receptions these days could not possibly be described as or confused with a ‘religious event.’”⁽¹⁶⁾Smith, 127. He references an article by Fr. Regis Scanlon who does not support his position here. Cf. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M., Cap., Homiletics and Pastoral Review, Feb. 1988, 20-27.

            Msgr. Smith continues: “Some might think it inconsistent to attend a reception celebrating an event which you just chose not to attend (I would respect those who could not do this.) Yet, the ambiguous no-show and show-up could convey two needed messages: the absence would testify to the unacceptance…[and] the presence could affirm family bonds of love and friendship.”⁽¹⁷⁾Ibid.

            Once the event has taken place, Dr. Grisez further counsels actions that maintain the position that there is an invalid marriage: “In the aftermath of the wedding, treat [the family member] with familial affection, keep in touch…and welcome [him or her]. When the couple are together, you should treat them as you would if they were not married…Do not invite them to your home to stay overnight as if they were married. You may, however, invite them to family celebrations and may visit their residence. But you should discourage behavior in your presence that would be appropriate only if they were validly married.”⁽¹⁸⁾Grisez, 174. He continues with various other advice, including the importance of sending Christmas and Birthday cards, welcoming children if they have them, and without nagging, encouraging the couple to fulfill their responsibilities when possible.

Conclusion

            The solutions presented here do not provide an entirely happy resolution to the problem of the invalid marriage. Both dialogue and the willingness to accept some form of division are unfortunately necessary. This is what Christ meant when He said, “He who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37). 

            Pope St. John Paul II explains that dialogue is an essential part of the life of the Church but that it has the goal of bringing about conversion. Supporting dialogue, he writes: “Authentic dialogue, therefore, is aimed above all at the rebirth of individuals through interior conversion and repentance, but always with profound respect for consciences and with patience and at the step-by-step pace indispensable for modern conditions.”⁽¹⁹⁾Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 25.

            However, dialogue cannot be an end in itself. The dialogue must always be a means of leading toward repentance and reconciliation, toward an encounter with the Person of Jesus Christ. The Pope teaches: “To evoke conversion and penance in man’s heart and to offer him the gift of reconciliation is the specific mission of the church as she continues the redemptive work of her divine founder. It is not a mission which consists merely of a few theoretical statements and the putting forward of an ethical ideal unaccompanied by the energy with which to carry it out. Rather it seeks to express itself in precise ministerial functions directed toward a concrete practice of penance and reconciliation.”⁽²⁰⁾Ibid., 23.

            This mission of penance and reconciliation presupposes that the person has some awareness of sin. Without a sense of sin, conversion is impossible. Therefore, although bringing the faithful back through love, patience and dialogue, are necessary, that is not enough. There must also be a restoration of the sense of sin in the conscience of the person, and that requires making loved ones aware that a marriage without the Church’s blessing offends God. 

            The path forward in these situations requires much prayer, prudence, and in many of the cases, long suffering, with the hope that full reconciliation will someday occur.