Permitted or Expedient? A Model Pastoral Dialogue on Marriage and Moral Wisdom.

 

The modern world encourages emotional autonomy, private confidences, and expansive friendships. The Church, however, asks a sterner question: What safeguards the unity of the marriage bond?

Prologue: A Model Pastoral Dialogue 

In every age, marriage stands at the crossroads of affection and discipline, freedom and fidelity. It is easy to speak of love in poetic abstractions; it is far harder to guard it in daily life. The modern world encourages emotional autonomy, private confidences, and expansive friendships. The Church, however, asks a sterner question: What safeguards the unity of the marriage bond?

The following dialogue between His Lordship, Most Rev. Bede Okechukwu Nkamuke and his flock in a group chat for families unfolds not as a theoretical dispute, but as a pastoral exchange. A sincere question is raised. Necessary distinctions are proposed. A shepherd responds; not with sentiment, but with clarity shaped by experience, theology, and the hard realism of Original Sin.

This conversation is not about suspicion, nor about denying the possibility of noble friendships. It is about something weightier:

• the fragility of trust,
• the force of charity,
• and the sacred architecture of marriage.

At stake is not merely whether something is permitted, but whether it is wise. Not whether it is abstractly lawful, but whether it strengthens or weakens the covenant.

Here we witness a tension familiar to moral theology:
 the difference between what can be argued;  and what must be renounced for love.

Read it not as a rulebook, but as a mirror. For in marriage, every decision either fortifies unity or erodes it; often long before anyone notices the unfortunate crack.

The Dialogue 

The First Questioner: 

Salve Your Lordship @⁨Bishop Nkamuke Bede⁩  please is it appropriate for a married man or woman to maintain a close friendship with someone of the opposite sex?  If yes/no, kindly help me understand the reasons and the spiritual wisdom the Church gives regarding such relationships. Thank you in advance, and may God continue to strengthen you more.🙏🏿

Bishop Nkamuke : Please explain what you mean by a close relationship.

The First Questioner: 

Thank you, Your Lordship, by close relationship in my own perspective, I mean a friendship involving regular private communication without the knowledge of the person's spouse, emotional sharing of personal matters, frequent one-on-one interactions, and a level of intimacy or reliance that goes beyond ordinary social or group friendships especially between married persons, or between a married person and someone of the opposite sex. I am seeking to understand what boundaries the Church considers healthy and spiritually safe in such situations.

Bishop Nkamuke : Based on this definition, no, one may not have  such a close relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  Any conversation that  one would not be willing to share with one's spouse must be avoided. There should be no intimacy with a person who is not your spouse. This is not simply a matter of morals, but also a matter of commonsense.  The unity of the married life cannot withstand such relationship with another person.  The sacredness of marriage forbids such a relationship. 

Second Interlocutor: 

My own definition of close relationship:

- Discussing progress in career or business and sharing ideas

- Discussing and sharing ideas on each one’s marriage difficulties 

- Discussing and sharing ideas on difficulties with extended family

The kind of honest friendship that can exist between a St Francis and St Clare or a priest and a nun or a married man and another married woman. 

Are such relationships completely outlawed because one is married? 😁

Bishop Nkamuke : (responding to the second interlocutor) 

Based on this definition,  I would hesitate seriously,  as a married person to have such a discussion with someone of the opposite sex. And if the spouse is also unwilling to make his or her spouse a part of such conversation,  it casts serious doubts over the intention of the spouse.  

The best proof of good intentions is transparency.  When you begin to hide your conversation from your spouse, what message are you sending? You're telling him or her that the matters under discussion will not be comfortably shared with the spouse.

The Second Interlocutor: 

Your Lordship,

And if the conversations are not hidden? But the conversations are had nevertheless?

😁😁😁

Bishop Nkamuke : It depends on the nature of conversation.  The fact that the conversation is not hidden, is not a sufficient reason to permit it. A spouse can decide to make a  improper conversation open. It doesn't justify the morality of the conversation. 

We have all been wounded with Original Sin.  The best way to overcome temptation is to avoid one.  

Also consider,  most persons who are not Catholics have very low standard of morality.  Even the spouses have permitted things in their homes that would be ordinarily forbidden by good Catholics.

The Second Interlocutor: 

…The relationship itself is not intrinsically evil. It is filled with dangers, yes. And there are prudent means to avoid the pitfalls.

Correct?

That's my argument.

Bishop: Not exactly correct.  

The marriage bond is such that it cannot withstand such battering for long. If there are dangers, as you admit,  it will be wrong and foolhardy to suppose that that you can withstand them. We are told by the Church to avoid temptation,  not to brazenly face them.

(Agreeing with a contributor who said)

Kindly  note that where the spouse feels threatened by the conversation, the converser must stop the conversation promptly and permanently

The Bishop added: Exactly.

Any spouse who insists on continuing a relationship when it threatens thr marriage,  and where there are clearly dangers, is longer acting based on charity, but based on some private,  selfish advantage. 

(Further on, Bishop added:)

We cannot make a rule for ourselves because we want to continue what we are doing. 

Every saint who talks about temptation tells us to flee.  

We even pray that God "lead us not into temptation ". But we want to make exceptions  for our own "special situation ". 

I think the answers here would suffice for anyone of goodwill. A person who wants to justify anything can find many reasons for it. 

One can either consider the good of the family, or one's own personal advantage.  

I have seen many situations like this. And I have come to note that those who put family before self end up making the needed sacrifice. But those who put self before family, find many "good reasons" to continue with their status quo. 

Thomas a Kempis said we are sometimes obliged to desist from lawful things for the good of the community.

We are not meant to spend our lives living on the precipice especially with regard to moral matters.

The Second Interlocutor: 

Your Lordship, 

That's exactly the point. 

Although:

-  the close relationship in itself is not intrinsically evil

- the spouse has no right to OBLIGE the ceasing of the relationship 

Yet, like in many other circumstances in family life, charity demands, for the good of the spouse and the family, that the relationship cease.

It is one of charity, not obligation. 

And with this, I completely agree.

My mind likes keeping the necessary distinctions. 🤣

Bishop: 

I think this is just a distinction you make to justify the Relationship.  

You're taking Charity to mean something light. Charity obliges very strongly sometimes. 

In the case in question, absence of Charity will be the ruin of the family. And it will be a case of extreme selfishness to continue along the path,  with the knowledge that it vexes the spouse, deprives the family of peace, and puts the marriage at risk of failure.  

Once the marriage bond is contracted,  one becomes obliged to do what is needed to keep it intact. 

There are things to consider: the stability of the marriage, the children's upbringing in a stable home, etc. It is not only about what is permitted but also what is expedient.

The First Questioner: 

Thank you, Your Lordship, for your guidance and clarity. It is one thing to listen to and another to sincerely understand and put it into practice as God wills us to. I am grateful for your wisdom and direction.

May Jesus, Mary, and St. Joseph continue to guide, protect, and strengthen us all.🙏🏿

Ave Maria 🌹

End of dialogue 

***********************************

Commentary:

The following outline is intended to help streamline the dialogue for easier appreciation of the subject matter. 

The Question

• Is it appropriate for a married man or woman to maintain a close friendship with someone of the opposite sex?
• “Close” defined as:
• Regular private communication
• Emotional sharing of personal matters
• Frequent one-on-one interactions
• Reliance or intimacy beyond ordinary social friendship
• Further nuance:
• What if conversations are not hidden?
• What if the relationship is not intrinsically evil, but merely “dangerous”?
• Is ceasing such a relationship a matter of obligation or merely charity?

Proposed Nuances

• “It’s not intrinsically evil.”
• “If the spouse knows about it, then it’s fine.”
• “Transparency removes the moral problem.”
• “It’s only about prudence, not obligation.”
• “Charity may suggest stopping; but one cannot be obliged.”
• “The relationship itself is good; only abuse would be wrong.”
• “This is like St. Francis and St. Clare; a noble friendship.”

These distinctions aim to preserve the relationship while acknowledging risk.

Bishop Nkamuke’s Resolution

• No such close relationship is appropriate.
• Transparency alone does not justify morally imprudent behavior.
• If a conversation cannot comfortably include one’s spouse, it should not occur.
• Even open conversations may still be improper in nature.
• Marriage is a sacred bond that cannot withstand sustained emotional rivalries.
• We are wounded by Original Sin; the Church teaches us to flee temptation, not test ourselves against it.
• When a spouse feels threatened, charity demands the relationship cease — promptly and permanently.
• Continuing such a relationship despite danger is:
• Self-preferential
• A violation of charity
• A threat to family peace
• Charity is not optional sentiment; it obliges strongly.
• After marriage, one is bound not merely to avoid sin, but to preserve:
• Marital unity
• Family stability
• The good of children
• The issue is not only “Is it permitted?” but “Is it expedient for the good of the family?”

Final Principle

• The relationship may not be intrinsically evil in abstraction.
• But in lived marital reality, such closeness is morally unsafe and spiritually imprudent.
• Marriage requires sacrifice.
• When peace, trust, and unity are endangered, charity obliges renunciation.
• One must choose:
• Personal advantage
• Or the good of the family

The Bishop’s consistent answer:
Protect the marriage. Avoid the danger. Choose charity over self.