by Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D

The Pastor And Invalidly Married Parishioners

Question: What obligation has a pastor toward those parishioners who are living in an invalid marriage?

Answer: A pastor undoubtedly has grave obligations toward parishioners involved in an invalid marriage. He would be guilty of neglecting his duty if he failed to do anything for them or argued that he can wait until they come to him with their problems. Our Lord expects him to go in search of these strayed sheep, even if they themselves do not seek his assistance. When he finds out that a couple living in his parish, one of whom (at least) is a Catholic, are not validly married, he should visit them and see what can be done to rectify the situation. There are thousands of Catholics in our land today living in invalid unions that could be validated (either through the fulfillment of the prescribed form or through a sanatio) if some zealous priest interested himself in them. In many such cases the non-Catholic party could be induced to make an honest study of the Church’s claims, if the priest gave this person a kindly and straightforward talk. Of course, there are many other invalid unions that cannot be rectified, usually because of the impediment of a previous marriage bond. But even in such cases the pastor should not neglect the couple. He should not, indeed, make any compromise with the situation by treating the couple as a properly married pair, or by cloaking over the fact that they are living in sin and that as long as they continue to live as husband and wife their sin cannot be forgiven by God. But by fervent and kindly admonition he might be able to induce the couple to separate or (if the requisite conditions are present) to live as brother and sister. Even if he does not succeed to this extent he should urge the couple to pray for divine help and mercy, and let them know that as soon as they resolve to return to God, the way will be made as easy as possible.

Falsehoods By One in Authority

Question: What answer can be given by a man in public office, such as a senator, a governor, etc., to a question centering about some confidential matter, when any reply except a definite falsehood will probably result in at least a partial revelation of the secret?

Answer: The problem presented by our questioner in respect to a person in public life can occur also in the case of many others in posts of authority, such as the lawyer, the doctor, an ecclesiastical or religious superior, etc. Such a person often possesses information which he may not divulge. What answer should he give when he is questioned about the matter? Some theologians would answer that the only lawful ways in which the secret can be protected are silence or the use of a mental restriction. By a mental restriction is meant a statement that can be understood in the correct sense, though in the present circumstances it will probably be understood in some other sense. But it must be admitted that there are occasions when even the most clever mental restriction will be inadequate to prevent the revelation of the secret. The view of another school of theologians offers assistance in a case of this kind. They hold that when a person possesses a very important secret and someone is trying unjustly to discover it, this person is permitted to tell a direct falsehood as a means of protection. In such an event, they say, the falsehood is not to be classified as a lie, since the essential malice of a lie is the harm it does to society, and in the particular circumstances described, society is aided rather than harmed by a falsehood. I believe that the opinion of these latter theologians is sufficiently probable to be used in practice. Of course, only a very prudent and restricted use of this opinion is permissible.