Wan Wei Hsien, over at Torn Notebook, has posted an essay by the late Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby on “The Indissolubility of Marriage”, in two parts, here and here.
Also, while we’re at it … I never got the chance to link to some comments on the same sticky issue of Eastern and Western marriage disciplines by Dr. Peter Gilbert at De unione ecclesiarum.
Eirenikon 
Sorry I’m not able to see a general email address
where I can thank you for this blog;
I’m delighted to have been pointed to it.
& I hope you will visit my “Liturgy”
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
& consider placing it as a link here.
Let me know so I acknowledge that & link back.
Blessings
An excellent essay. I posted the link on A/O as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
ICXC
John
Because you brought the posts to my attention I am cross-posting here the comments I made at Wei-Hsien Wan’s site.
—–
Am I dealing with Protestants? This proposal of the late Archbishop Zoghby is poison and to hear it praised is a knife twisted in an already open wound! Wei-Hsien Wan, I have read your comments elsewhere and occasionally some of your posts here so I would like it to be known that I have great respect for you. However, I cannot follow you in praising this pernicious and damning proposal. I will reveal personal details so that you know why this upsets me so and why I am probably incapable of speaking dispassionately on it.
I AM the aggrieved party. I am the abandoned spouse, the innocent party. I did not wrong my wife, she wronged me. I did everything I could to preserve what had been a happy and short marriage but to no avail. The troubles of my wife that are fundamentally responsible for her abandoning the marriage are immaterial to the discussion so I will only say that my wife was not wicked and did not hurt me from a malicious intent but rather because of the delusions in her head.
I was not called to a life of perpetual continence, I was called to marriage. My whole life I prepared for it and longed for it, especially the blessing of children. Now I find myself in a situation not of my making and potentially fatal to the life I was called to. I do not want to be single, I was not called to be single and I do not deserve to be single; but who gets what they deserve? If what we deserve was what we were given then our just reward would be eternal damnation.
Do you not think that I struggle every day with what my potential future is; with the uncertainty of what my state in life is to be? I struggle daily and by the moment with the consequence of what has occurred. Dashed upon the rocks are my visions of the future, of the children I would have had and the life-long companion I have lost. Even now I long for her return even though I know such a hope is in vain. She will not come back and I must face the future alone.
Do you think that I have not thought about seeking solace in the arms of another? The betrayal of a spouse is worse than murder! Many a time I have wished that she had just put a bullet in me instead of subjecting me to this pain. The temptation that even for a moment another might relieve me of this pain is almost too much to resist. However, the Lord will not give me a burden too great to bear.
This proposal of Archbishop Zoghby is tantamount to saying that God will not grant me grace sufficient to bear the suffering of this life! I do not desire perpetual continence but that is what I must practice now, the same as if I had never married. The “insult” to my “inherent dignity” is to insinuate that I am incapable of controlling myself. With God’s help I can do anything!
To say that one is“…doomed to a single life of loneliness should they decide to separate.” is to say that being single is a curse of despair. I do not want to be single, I never did, but I shall not despair of my situation because I have hope in our Lord and in His body and bride the Church.
“Economy” is not a panacea for all the ills and suffering of this world. Hope, faith and love along with the grace our Lord gives us in the Sacraments and other means are what will sustain us through all our troubles. I do not need to be given an exception from the unbreakable commands of God. I am not some poor unfortunate who is too weak to take the narrow road but must instead be given a broad path. I am an adopted son of the Almighty and I will not be robbed of my inheritance by some well intentioned prelate who wants to make things easier for me by smoothing the path to Hell!
I will address this topic and the Archbishop’s arguments further in another comment once I calm down and have time to interact with the material.
Regarding august Fathers and their teaching:
The argument that because Eastern Saints are venerated in the Western-half of the Church and honored and studied they therefore should be followed in all matters is an argument that cuts both ways. St. Augustine is honored by the East; should the Eastern Orthodox therefore follow him in all matters? If the Eastern Fathers are to be followed regarding re-marriage should not the Latin Fathers from before the schism be followed regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost?
As a Latin-rite Catholic I was not taught that every utterance of a Saint, a Father, or Doctor of the Church was infallible and beyond reproach and correction. It is the unanimous or near-unanimous consent of the Fathers that demonstrated a particular teaching is part of the deposit of faith. Am I to believe that every piece of advice St. Basil gave is equal to the words of our Lord, to the Word himself? Was it Basil who was begotten consubstantial with the Father? Did Basil redeem me by hanging upon the Cross? Is the Church the bride of Basil and his body? This is not to denigrate St. Basil whom I hold in high regard but only to show that Basil is not above the express commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I excerpt now from the letter of Basil that Wei-Hsien Wan linked to:
IX. The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle He which is joined to a harlot is one body and of Jeremiah, If a wife become another man’s shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? And again, He that has an adulteress is a fool and impious. Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.
What is the context of this letter? Basil is addressing a question of discipline, not defining a dogmatic truth. His advice is to be headed and listened to but should it not be kept in mind that this most learned of Saints might have been in error? Is it so hard to imagine that Basil might have gone too far in his compassion and given concession to the hardness of our hearts over God’s created order just as Moses did? And what of the other things Basil advises in this section? Should we demand that abused wives remain with their husbands? Are we prepared to counsel this along with “economy” towards re-marriage?
To be continued…
Chrysostom: “Better to break a marriage than be damned.”
I have not been able to locate this quote yet. Chrysostom’s homily can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220119.htm
The closest I’ve found so far is:
Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart, for in this case the matter is no longer fornication. But what is the meaning of, if the unbelieving departs? For instance, if he bid you sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of your marriage, or else part company; it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness. Wherefore he adds, A brother is not under bondage, nor yet a sister, in such cases. If day by day he buffet you and keep up combats on this account, it is better to separate. For this is what he glances at, saying, But God has called us in peace. For it is the other party who furnished the ground of separation, even as he did who committed uncleanness.
From the context it is clear that St. John Chrysostom is discussing the marriage of a Christian and a pagan. This in no way supports the idea that Christians should be allowed to remarry.
James G,
Please keep in mind that I am not necessarily in agreement with Archbishop Zoghby’s take on this issue. In fact, I would tend to agree more with Professor Gilbert’s take. But I thought it worthy of a post, though, because it remains a thorny issue between East and West.
Eirenikon Editor,
I know that you are not necessarily in agreement with the Archbishop. My previous posts were cross-posted from Wei-Hsien Wan’s site. I inferred that Wei-Hsien Wan was either in agreement with Archbishop Zoghby’s position or at least sympathetic to it. If I am mistaken I hope he will forgive me. Instead of continuing to cross-post I will be addressing Dr. Gilbert’s post here. I hold Dr. Gilbert in great regard so I hope my comments are not uncharitable. Thank you for indulging all my comments.
James G
I agree with much of what Dr. Gilbert wrote, especially the following:
I cannot, however, get over the explicitness and urgency of the Lord’s statements. He seems to be saying that human beings, infinitely adept at deluding themselves and justifying themselves, will take every measure to get out of what seems to them a miserable situation except the one measure which is most vital and essential, which is to change their own hearts.
However, I must take issue with his presentation of annulments. Dr. Gilbert’s characterization of annulments betrays an ignorance of the matter, an ignorance that he admits to. I hope that I am not uncharitable towards him especially since annulments were a minor topic on his thread. I have addressed the topic of annulments
elsewhere on the web and I invite interested persons to read what I have said there.
It is a common misconception, even amongst Catholics, that annulments are just “Catholic divorce.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike divorce which claims to be able to dissolve what God had joined together, annulments are a juridical procedure designed to discover the truth regarding the validity of a marriage. This may seem like legalistic splitting-of-hairs but a thorough investigation of the topic will show that it is not. As always I recommend Dr. Ed Peters’ book on the subject.
Dr. Gilbert is correct when he writes, “I do not think I exaggerate if I say that, for most American Catholics, the possibility of annulment is viewed as roughly equivalent to the possibility of divorce.” However, he is in error when he then states, “And I would guess that the rates of annulment and of broken marriages within the Catholic Church in the United States are not too dissimilar from the rates of divorce among the general population.” While the rate of divorce amongst Catholics is similar to that amongst the population at large, by no means is the granting of annulments congruent to the rate of divorce. A very small minority of divorced Catholics have applied for, let alone obtained an annulment. Many just disregard the Church’s teaching on the matter much as they disregard other matters. There are also many who are not granted annulments.
A positive outcome (i.e. finding the marriage to have been invalid) is by no means a guarantee. A marriage is assumed valid unless proven to the contrary and there are limited grounds for invalidity. There is a “defender of the bond” who argues for the validity of the marriage and witness testimony must be given. If the first tribunal finds a marriage to in-fact have been invalid the matter is immediately appealed to another tribunal. Appeal to Rome is also recourse.
It is true that America has more annulments granted than the rest of the world. I used to wonder if this was due to an abuse of the system but now I believe it has more to do with America’s toxic culture. Current America values are poison to marriage with no stigma (and often encouragement) attached to divorce. Given that, I am more surprised that there are any valid marriages entered into in this morally depraved land.
In regards to my own situation I am just beginning the process to have the validity of my marriage investigated. Will this be a means out of the “single life of loneliness” as Archbishop Zoghby puts it? I dare not hope. I do believe there are strong grounds to question the validity of my marriage but there are no guarantees. If my marriage is found to have been valid then I will continue to live in continence until death us do part; a struggle in which grace and the Sacraments will aid me in perseverance.
A finding that my marriage was in-fact invalid is no bed of roses either. In addition to the severe emotional trauma I have endured, the reality of the life I had with my wife will be a source of sorrow. Much as Dr. Gilbert’s friends were pained; if my marriage is found to have been invalid, I will be deeply saddened and wounded. It would mean that the good life I had with the wife of my youth was not what I thought. It will not have been a marriage. Even though sin will not be attached to our actions, the thought that what we had was not marriage is very painful. She truly was my beloved in whom I delighted and I love her still. I did not want to be parted from her. If the Sacramental bond that I thought united us in-fact never existed I will be that much more alone.
There is no solution to the problem of failed marriages. Nothing will heal the pain of betrayal by one’s spouse. Suffering is our lot in this vale of tears. My God be merciful towards my wife and towards me.
Met. Kallistos Ware recently noted that the issue of divorce was discussed at the Council of Florence, albeit briefly, and the difference in disciplines on the two sides was not found to be a deal-breaker.
James G, my heart goes out to you. You say: “There is no solution to the problem of failed marriages.” That is exactly it. No matter what you do, it’s going to be an accommodation to the reality of a fallen world.
Richard
Richard,
Thank you for your kind words.
Regarding divorce being discussed at Florence, I am trying to get a copy of Gill’s History from the library so I can check it. I do have a rather polemical ROCOR History of the Council of Florence by Ostroumoff that I’ve checked on the issue.
On pp 158-159 it says that the Pope asked several questions of the Greeks and Dorotheus of Mitylene “gave satisfactory answers” to all but two, including on the issue of divorce. “The Pope addressed these questions to the Emperor. He asked him why the Greeks allow divorces, quite contrary to the plain words of our Lord.” Then it has “The Emperor answered the Pope through his Bishops, that the Eastern Church has sufficient reasons for allowing divorces…” That’s all that is written on the subject. These questions were posed after the union so I don’t think it can properly be said that the issue was addressed by the “Council of Florence.”
“Discussed at,” not “addressed by”. The point is that not a terribly big issue was made of it one way or the other, and certainly was not seen as a sticking point.
Richard
James G. thank you for the courageous attitude you have toward the Christian life, and for your willingness to share your experience with the blogosphere. Such boldness and testimony is the fruit of the work of holiness God is doing in you and such holiness is the foundation of the Church.
As for economy, it does not impress me much. If it were Anglicans speaking instead of Orthodox, they would use another word, fudge.
Fr. J —
Simply as a thought experiment, since you’re the one who was suggested before that people spare each other insults:
“As for annulment, it does not impress me much. If it were Orthodox speaking instead of Catholics, they would use another word, divorce.”
Without, please, resorting to the statement that “this reflects a misrepresentation of what annulment is” (since I can just as easily claim that what you say reflects a misrepresentation of what economy is), your thoughts?
Richard
No matter what you do, it’s going to be an accommodation to the reality of a fallen world.
But that accommodation must not be a betrayal of the Lord’s command. No man on earth–no, not even a priest or a hierarch–has the power to break asunder what God has joined together. Which is precisely why that oikonomia thing is so troublesome. No priest can defy Christ Himself!
The Early Fathers taught (as does the Catholic Church) that some extreme exigencies (e.g., adultery) may justify separation from bed and board. A civil divorce may even be sanctioned. But, if the marriage was sacramentally valid, it remains sacramentally valid…i.e., it remains a true marriage in the eyes of God and the Church. That is Our Lord’s teaching, and it is the teaching of virtually ALL the ECFs, both East and West. Therefore, remarriage is impermissible. Our Lord made no provision whatsoever for “pentitential” remarriages. There is not one solitary word in the Gospels about such a thing. “Penitential” remarriage (up to three times for up to 20 reasons) is the invention of men–one which even the East did not widely accept until the 10th-13th centuries.
I wish Mr. Likoudis would weigh in here. I know some people dislike his style, but he knows a heck of a lot about the history of Christian marriage, East and West, and he could really lay to rest some erroneous claims about the teaching of the Eastern Fathers on the subject.
I am with Professor Gilbert. There is no way to get around Our Lord’s command. The EO solution stands Our Lord’s command on its ear.
May God rest Archbishop Zoghby’s soul…but, man, I sure am glad he’s not in a position to mislead God’s people any longer. Whew!
Diane
P.S. James, you are in my prayers. What diocese are you in, BTW? Please e-mail me at diane_kamer@yahoo.com. Thanks!
Richard: I do not think that you understand the concept of annulments, but I believe Father J. understands economy perfectly well–leastwise when it is used to justify a complete overthrow of Our Lord’s explicit command.
BTW–Mr. Likoudis and others have made short work of the tired appeal to Basil. I do wish he or some other knowledgeable, faithful Catholic would weigh in here on this topic. (Not that JamesG is unknowledgeable or unfaithful–quite the contrary–but Mr.Likoudis has made a special study of this particular objection, so it would be great to have his take.)
Since both East and West routinely “betray the Lord’s command” to “call no man on earth your father,” I’m not particularly impressed, to be frank. I’m not saying I have a problem with that; I’m saying that both sides nuance their understanding of “the Lord’s command,” whatever it is, to some extent or another. This is unavoidable; what is arguable is whether these instances are a question of practice or discipline and when they are a question of dogma.
If the discussion can only eventually boil down to “We’re right, and you’re wrong, and if you think that’s not true then you just don’t understand” then I submit that the spirit of this blog is unfulfillable this side of the Parousia.
The point remains: Florence, which the West is very big on acknowledging as an ecumenical council, did not make this a barrier to reunion. Exactly under what circumstances or expectations it chose to not make an issue out of this is up for discussion; that reunion with East with their practices regarding divorce remaining unchanged was assumed to be going forward by Florence is not, particularly.
Is it really not possible for this to be discussed without daggers coming out?
Richard
Is it really not possible for this to be discussed without daggers coming out?
Apparently not, since you drew yours versus Father J. to begin with! But I will concede that I should not have said you do not understand annulments. I was simply reacting to what I saw, perhaps mistakenly, as the snideness and flippancy of your response to Father J. If I misconstrued your words, I apologize. Even if I didn’t misconstrue them, I apologize. ;)
As for “betraying the Lord’s command” re calling no man father: We have ample contextual evidence that Christ did not mean this in the absolute sense in which fundamentalists understand it. He Hmself even referred to human fathers as fathers, after all! Thus the Church of both East and West has [i]always[/i] understood this passage as simply warning against showing exaggerated respect toward mere mortals.
But the case of the Dominical prohibition of divorce is quite different For one thing, Our Lord’s words could scarcely be stronger, more solemn, or more emphatic: “What God has joined together, let NO MAN put asunder.” And just to make it unmistakable for us, Our Lord repeats the same idea several times in different words. Never does He remotely suggest that He is merely proposing an ideal (i.e., the view Peter Gilbert characterizes as the Orthodox stance). No. He clearly states that a divorced man who marries another commits adultery, and nothing in the context indicates that He is just kidding To the contrary: When the disciples register shock, He simply reiterates His point even more forcefully. He doesn’t backtrack; He doesn’t say, “Oh, well, it’s just an ideal; but, if you can’t attain the ideal, that’s OK; economy can accommodate you.” Never. He meets resistance–or at least shock and dismay–yet He never flinches. He has the chance to say, “Oh that’s OK; don’t take this literally,” yet He doesn’t.
From the context, therefore, it is clear that He means it. Even the disciples understand that He means it: That is why they register shock and surprise. They would scarcely do so if they understood Him as proposing a mere ideal.
Accordingly, the Church has always understood these Dominical statements as a solemn, absolute prohibition of divorce / remarriage in cases where the couple was validly married to begin with. Moreover, the East originally accepted this interpretation, too, and various Eastern Fathers can be adduced to support this claim. In fact, IIRC, when Justinian argued in favor of divorce / remarriage, the Eastern hierarchs of his day opposed his view. It was only later–and partly under imperial pressure–that the Eastern hierarchs began to capitulate on this question.
In the light of “let no man put asunder,” it is hard to see the famous Matthean exception as somehow justifying divorce / remarriage — as though Our Lord were flatly contradicting Himself in order to give us sinners a loophole. But more on that later, in another comment, since it is a huge topic by itself.
Now, re annulments: Annulments do not dissolve a valid sacramental marriage. Rather, they are a formal recognition that no such marriage existed in the first place. This may strike Orthodox ears as a sophistical distrinction without a difference, but in reality it makes all the difference in the world. Y’all dissolve valid marriages. We simply acknowledge that there was no marriage there in the first place.
Think of it this way. If a brother and sister marry, they may go through a ceremony and consummate the union and the whole nine yards…but they are not validly married. Consanguinity is one of the classic impediments to a valid marriage. Even if the couple did not know they were brother and sister, their “marriage” is still null and void. A decree of nullity does not dissolve such a marriage. It simply recognizes that no marriage ever existed in the first place.
The same holds true if one partner was forced into the marriage. The marriage can be valid only if both parties freely consent to it. So, if either or both parties were forced into it, then no real marriage has taken place. The couple may have gone through the motions, but they are not married–not validly married in the sight of God and the Church.
Same goes for a marriage where the husband is permanently and irreparably impotent. Such a marriage cannot be consummated…and consummation is pretty much a sine qua non of marriage.
I would venture to guess that most cultures and religions recognize that there are certain impediments to valid marriage; after all, the taboo against incest is pretty much universal. And even civil law recognises that a bigamous marriage is not valid.
So, the idea of null “marriages” is not some peculiarly Catholic thing. Nor is it yet another example of that infamous Latin Legalism(TM). All societies have to have some way to determine whether a marriage has truly taken place–i.e., whether it is valid. Pretty crucial things hang on such a determination–e.g., provision for children and inheritance rights.
Now, back to the Catholic annulment process. Where it gets hairy is when you come up against some of the other criteria for determining the validity of a marriage, especially criteria involving the “bonum coniugium.” You can get into the murky, subjective waters of the parties’ intent at the time of the wedding, and all that. I’m not saying that this is necessarily a Bad Thing; certainly intent at the time of the wedding does have some bearing on the marriage’s validity. (Think of Lieutenant Pinkerton in Madama Butterfly, entering his Japanese marriage with the understanding that it was merely a temporary arrangement. Such a marriage could not be valid in Catholic eyes, since a valid marriage must by definition be embraced as permanent and indissoluble; anything else is simply shacking up.)
OK, getting back on topic…I freely admit that there have been horrible abuses in Catholic praxis over the past 40 years. But abuse does not invalidate use. If it did, we’d have to throw Christianity out the window, since no one but Jesus and Mary have ever fully lived up to its requirements.
I lament the abuses, and so does the Vatican, which is cracking down. But the principle remains sound–viz., that some marriages are not valid marriages to begin with–and, by God’s Grace, the praxis will be reformed.
This, again, is different from the Orthodox approach. In Orthodoxy, the praxis dovetails exactly with the official teaching that marriages can be dissolved via application of economy. But in Catholicism, the abusive praxis is just that — an abuse of the official Church Teaching.
Therefore, in Catholicism, when a diocesan chancery hands out annulments indiscriminately, said chancery is sinning against God and against the Church, because this praxis violates God’s command and Catholic Teaching. But when an Orthodox priest officiates at a second marriage, it’s Business as Usual per official Orthodox Teaching.
Again: big difference.
One more word about abuses of the annulment process, especially here in America: The abuses are egregious, and I do not justiufy them. But the situation is not as horrible as our critics claim. Both within and outside of the Catholic Church, you’ll often hear people say, “Well, in 1960 there were only 600 annulments, but now there are many thousands.” But what these critics forget is that you cannot even apply for an annulment unless you are going through or have gone through a civil divorce. And, in 1960, there were relatively few civil divorces, especially among Catholics. Fewer divorces = fewer annulments. It’s simple arithmetic.
Today, however, there are exponentially more divorces than there were in 1960. Obviously, when you have more people divorcing, you will have more annulment cases. So, the higher number of annulments is partly explained by the higher number of people applying for annulments. I’m not saying this is the sole explanation. Excessive laxity in chancery praxis plays a role, obviously, as well as overly elastic interpretations of the “bonum coniugium.” But it is simplistic to assert–as some people do–that Vatican II led to more annulments. The general breakdown in society over the past 40 years has led to a much higher divorce rate…and Vatican II had nothing to do with that.
The bottom line, though, is that abuse does not invalidate use. The use, the official Church Teaching, remains inviolably true, because it comes from the Lord Himself.
And here we come back to your charge that I am saying, “We’re right; you’re wrong.” Well, yes, I am saying that. How could I not? The two approaches are different; they contradict each other; ergo they cannot both be right. It has nothing to do with a sort of neener-neener triumphalism. Rather, it’s all about the principle of non-contradiction. Either Our Lord allowed a loophole for divorce / remarriage or He didn’t. You believe He did. We believe He didn’t. We cannot both be right. I happen to believe that the Catholic Church is right on this score.
Moreover, the argument that we all fall short, we all “betray the Lord,” doesn’t wash. By that reasoning, we should allow murder and adultery, too. After all, “Do not kill” and “Do not commit adultery” are mere ideals, right? ;) Fallen human nature cannot always attain the ideals; therefore, let’s apply economy in cases where, say, a wronged spouse commits a crime of passion or a neglected spouse seeks solace in another’s arms. You can see where this leads, right? It’s sheer situation ethics. And ISTM the permission for divorce / remarriage via economy is yet another example of situation ethics. Situation ethics dressed up with solemn language and beautiful ceremonies, but still situation ethics.
Diane
Thank you for your lengthy exegesis on annulment; in the spirit of taking self-characterization at face value, I don’t know many Orthodox who would agree that we believe Christ allowed for a “loophole”; I also question the characterization of economy as, essentially, a “get out of tough situation free card”. There may perhaps have been times where it has been wielded in that manner, but as you say, “abuse does not invalidate use.”
Richard
Well, Richard, I figured you would appreciate the allusion to Madama Butterfly. ;)
I do not by any stretch claim to be anything remotely like an expert on this topic. I’m in the process of learning about it, though, because a friend of mine, our parish’s deacon, is involved with the diocesan Tribunal, and he tells me about the cases he is working on. He’s the one who pointed out to me the fact that the lower number of annulments in 1960 just might have something to do with the lower incidence of divorce. (Duhh!)
I appreciate hard cases as much as the next person. (As pro-life advocates note, however, it is always the hard cases that get trotted out when people are trying to find a way around immemorial Christian ethics. ;)) I have been blessed with a solid 26-year marriage to one and only one husband, but I have many friends who have been through horrible experiences with divorce ad (in some cases) remarriage. I cannot say that I feel their pain–no one but Jesus does–but I know their pain is very real. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everything all right with God and the Church, but I can’t. I cannot get around Our Lord’s command.
What I can do, though, is encourage people to find out whether their marriages were valid from the git-go. In our diocese, at least, and in many others, the annulment process is quite rigorous; anyone who thinks it is “Catholic Divorce” should try going through it sometime. My deacon friend deals with cases that are still pending after five or more years–and even when the archdiocese has finally confirmed the diocese’s decree of nullity, one party can still appeal the decison to the Roman Rota.
But in today’s world there may be more genuinely invalid marriages than one might think, because so many people nowadays, in our hookup anbd shack-up culture, enter marriage without any intention that it be permanent–IOW, they haven’t entered a marriage at all (as marriage is understood in the Catholic sacramental sense) but a temporary arrangement. It’s really hard to figure out what their initial intent was, though, and whether it was so dframatically opposed to sacramental Christian marriage as to render their exhange of vows essentially a lie, i.e., invalid from the outset. This is where the annulment process gets really sticky (and tons of people are deposed about what the parties said and wrote and did at the time of the wedding). This is where the grey areas the Holy Father alludes to in the excerpt above come in. But there are no grey areas whatsoever connected with the Catholic doctrine that valid marriages are indissoluble. This is completely black and white. The question is not whether valid marriages can be terminated. (They can’t.) The question is–which are the valid marriages?
Does anybody understand anymore what dialogue means? And how it differs from confessional apologetics, not to say downright polemics? The tone of this discussion is not exemplary. I think as a general rule we should avoid comment unti we have seen every trace of anger die away. And remembering how easy it is to fool ourselves, we should not be over quick to suppose that it has.
Mea culpa, Father Paul. Again, my apologies to Richard Barrett for my harsh and uncharitable tone.
I confess, though, that I do not entirely agree that confessional arguments have no place in discussions such as this one. If dialogue must perforce entail muting or ignoring our differences, then it may lead to goodwill and bonhomie, but it will not lead to reunion. As our Orthodox brethren continually remind us, there is such a thing as a false ecumenism.
Some of us feel strongly about the indissolubility of marriage, and we are frankly scandalized by the Orthodox teaching and praxis in this area. By the same token, some Orthodox are scandalized by Latin liturgical abuses (and they never let us hear the end of it ;)). Such things should be on the table, I think, as long as they can be discussed charitably. If they are off-limits for discussion, then the conversation becomes a bland, boring Barney-fest, where everyone agrees, no one dares to disagree, and we don’t really end up understanding each other any better.
I know you were not proposing that; I expect that you would not, for instance, object if an Orthodox poster here took us Catholcs to task over, say, the Filioque. ;) But anyway…. (can’t think of aything more to say on the subject, so I’ll stop here)
Diane
OK, I thought of something else to say. LOL.
Father Paul: You ask whether anyone knows what dialogue is. But I ask–is that what this forum is supposed to be? Is it supposed to be the sort of dialogue that ecumenists carry on with each other, at big round shiny conference tables, under the auspices of fancy commissions with fancy indecipherable acronyms? If so, then all I can say is: That ain’t the Internet. ;) The Eirenikopn blog, thankfully, is a haven from much of the rough and tumble of Internet polemics. I deeply appreciate that. But OTOH surely there can be some amount of “iron sharpening iron” here, as long as we keep it civil…?
This is Eirenikon Editor’s call, entirely. But I for one would hate to see this blog turn into the sort of place where one is afraid to say “boo” about what one believes. I think my Orthodox brethren might not much appreciate that, either.
God bless and with great trepidation….
Diane
Diane
it’s monday morning here and your comments – after a very stressful and busy weekend – elicited the first real smile of the week. So thanks for that,and for the good-natured way you make them.
I do agree totaly that dialogue does not mean brushing difficulties and disagreements under the carpet. On the contrary, it supooses adressing them frankly and without falsely understimating them. But it also replies a certain intellectual ascesis on our part: striving to listen first, then understand, then try to eneter into the other’s point of view (even if in the end we conclude that we cannot acept it fully).
Ecumenism has been given a bad name among those concerned for sound doctrine (I count myself one of them) by being practiced too often by people who are so eager to agree that they fall into some of the traps you outline. I was amused by your colourful satire of the ecumenism “industry”. Like all satire, it is a little one-sided, but it can help us, if it is given and received in the right spirit, not to take ourselves too seriously. And we all need that, no matter what our beliefs.
Indeed I would not object if an Orthodox commentator were to adress his objections to the filioque. I would however, object strenuously if he were to charicature the Catholic position, or trot out the old clichés – especially if he tells me that all the defects of the Catholic church are to be attributed thereto. (men like Lossky who originated this claim posessed a breadth of knowlege and depth of vision which makes me more patient of them than of their latter-day emulators, who rarely possess such qualities). Since the filioque is one of the few fields where I can claim to possess some little expertise, I would not be shy about entering into some vigorous argument with them, but I hope I would not only be courteous, but also have the good sense to follow my own advice, and wait until my anger or irritation had subsided!
You will notice perhaps that I have made no comment on the substance of the issue under discussion – the practice of the “economy” regarding second marriages. My silence is in part because I possess no expertise at all ine field of moral theology. This does not prevent me, however, from having some quite strong opinions on the subject. It is the very strength of those opinions, rather than my lack of specialist knowledge, (internet, as you point out, is not a forum reserved to specialists or academic elitists) which make me conclude that I ought to keep silence on the issue, at least here and now. I simply do not trust myself to make a contribution capable of generating more light than heat. And only such contributions will in the end be useful, at least if my objective is to advance the discussion, and not to make myself feel better by letting off steam!
Richard,
Annulment is the acknowledgment by the Catholic Church that what is required for a sacrament to take place was lacking at the time of the attempted sacrament and thus the sacrament never took place.
I am no expert on economy, but as I understand it, economy is the acknowledgment by the Orthodox that a real sacrament took place, but that a new spouse is permitted for some certain reasons.
Correct me if I am wrong, but these are in no way to equal or parallel tracks. The first respects marriage is a once, for all time covenant, indissoluble by man, the second is an acquiescence to human weakness despite eternal commitments.
Annulment cannot be characterized responsibly as a divorce. If I misunderstand economy, please show me where I am wrong.
Fr. J —
What I am suggesting is that it is just as irresponsible and disrespectful from the Orthodox point of view to call “economy” a “fudge” as it is from the Catholic point of view to call “annulment” a de facto “divorce”, and that there are Orthodox who would claim to be just as scandalized by the practice of annulment as some Catholics claim to be over allowing divorce and remarriage.
In terms of where I stand, I will merely say that I remain unconvinced that it is an issue where it will be possible, as Fr. Paul says, to generate more light than heat, because there are some different presuppositions involved.
Richard
these are in no way to equal or parallel tracks
Exactly!! Thank you, Father.
Richard,
What I am suggesting is that if my perception of economy is wrong, that you disabuse me and any who think like me (and there are many).
I have not seen here any attempt to explain or shed light on the meaning of economy. What I have seen is comments which attempt to avoid the issue.
Just explain economy from an Orthodox point of view and we can make progress…
I do not see a forum like this as a place where we ignore differences, but can vigorously discuss them in order to find the common ground. I am more than glad to find the common ground, but first let’s at least discuss where we are.
So, how do you understand economy?
Also, Richard, if there are different presuppositions involved, that is fine. Just explain them. I think we are all okay with that.
This is what I and others have done with regard to annulment. We have explained the Catholic presuppositions for marriage and why annulment is not divorce. If you would like more detail, we will be glad to fill in the various grounds for annulment, etc.
So, let’s here from the Orthodox side. If there are differing presuppositions, then let’s hear them.
I would like also to add to Diane’s thoughts on the higher number of annulments today.
With the breakdown of contemporary society, particularly since the 1960’s, it is decidedly more difficult for moderns to enter into a Catholic sacramental marriage which requires several things:
Understanding: The couple must understand what a sacrament is and what the marriage sacrament entails. It is a commitment to live faithfully the life of a Catholic family in marriage including having children, raising the children in the faith, being faithful to one another and remaining faithful for life. It is a spiritual reality in which God is a party to the covenant.
Faith: The couple has to actually believe in the power of the sacrament, and the possibility of the vision of marriage explained above.
Capacity: The couple has to have the mental and emotional capacity to enter into a permanent commitment.
Commitment: The couple has to actually make the commitment to marriage, which is a different thing from believing in the sacrament.
Moderns have all kinds of problems with the above requirements. Addictions, narcissism, infidelity during courtship, unbelief, immaturity–prolonged adolescence, and the pervasive acceptance of divorce as acceptable, all militate against the Church’s understanding of marriage.
I would submit that perhaps a minority of Catholic weddings today meet the requirements of a Catholic sacrament despite the efforts of priests and lay people to thoroughly prepare couples for marriage. How can the Church undo in months the secular attitudes formed over a lifetime?
So, yes, Catholic weddings are far more common than Catholic sacramental marriages. Annulment is the process by which the Catholic Church is muddling through the nightmare of the present age.
Fr. J —
I might offer the following for now:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
Thanks for the link, Richard.
It is an interesting read for a few reasons. As I have found in other Orthodox links, it presents the Orthodox teaching not as a self sustaining whole but in contradistinction from Catholic teaching. I expect this from Protestants who were formed in reaction to Catholicism, not from the Orthodox. But, there it is. This is just an observation, not a criticism.
But, sadly, this link gets sets up a distorted image of Catholic teaching as a kind of implied straw man.
Several claims are made: That the Orthodox see marriage as a mystical reality not only between the couple but also between them and God. If you read Catholic theology, you will see that there is no difference here. If you look at the Catholic rite of marriage you will see that Catholics understand marriage as an anticipation of heaven as well, particularly as the Church is the bride and Christ is the bridegroom.
Yes, Catholics understand the couple to be the ministers of the sacrament, but the priest or deacon is not a passive observer. The longest text in the Latin marriage rite by far is the nuptial blessing without which there is no sacrament. While the couple make vows to each other, they are sacramentalized by the priest’s blessing.
The link you provided presents Orthodox marriage as a union of the couple primarily and Catholic marriage as a means to procreation only. Well, this is a bald distortion. The Catholic understanding presents two ends of marriage: the union of the couple (fidelity) and children (fecundity). Never are these two ends of marriage to be separated. Marriage is not just for procreation.
Regarding divorse, the link states:
A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”.[21]
The violation of a marriage relationship is divided into two groups:
1. those resulting from adultery (unfaithfulness and immoral behaviour)
2. those proceeding from the absence of one of the partners (this absence must however have certain distinctives).
According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony.[22] The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.[23]
Ah, finally we have a useful statement of the Orthodox position on divorce.
Regarding economia:
But now the question remains, what is “economia”? Well, according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations. The application of economia only takes place through the official church authorities and is only applicable for a particular case.”[31] This is allowed for exceptional and severe reasons, but creates no precedent. The Church, which continues to extend Christ’s redeeming work in the world, has on the basis of the Lord’s commandments, and of the apostles, determined a number of canons. Through these the Church helps the believers to come to salvation. But it should be noticed that these rules are not applied on a juridical basis, for the Church always holds in mind what the Lord Himself has said: “The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2, 27).
…
Economia is based on Christ’s command to his apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven” (John 20, 22-23). This is the case when the human marriage experience becomes impossible, due to the spiritual death of love. It is then that the Church – as the Body of Christ – with understanding and compassion and out of personal concern, can apply the “economia” “by accepting the divorce and not rejecting the sinful humanly weak believers, or depriving them from God’s mercy and further grace.”[33] It is the precise goal of economia that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion, according to Christ’s example, who came, after all, to save the lost.
It seems to me that economy is what is sometimes called in liberal Catholic circles “the pastoral approach” whereby the priest waves the discipline of the Church in order to be more “pastoral” akin to merciful or kind. It is a way of saying “here is the hard teaching, but let’s take a more humane approach to the problem.” This is sometimes used by liberal priests when they give communion to couple who are cohabitating or to gay couples, or if a couple failed to receive the petitioned annulment. This was common in the 70’s and 80’s but is now very much frowned upon. I know a priest who lost his faculties to marry for marrying a couple without benefit of a needed annulment.
But economy is not part of the theological or practical framework of the Catholic Church.
Frankly, I am a bit torn on the idea of economy. I understand the impulse to be charitable. But I also understand the teaching of Christ on marriage not to be a divine request or suggestion, but a command. A sacrament in my mind is a wonderful and terrible thing at once, and cannot be dispensed.
There are a couple of problems with the Orthodox theology of marriage I see here:
1. If the marriage bond is broken by mere sin and we are all sinful, then what did Christ mean when he said marriage was indissoluble? Indissolubility with the exception of the inevitable is hardly indissolubility. While the specific provisions are defined, there is still a fundamental philosophical problem with indissolubility being dissolved by mere human sin.
2. There is an obvious complication with economy. It does come across as a kind of fudge on indissolubility. Can it really be that marriage is indissoluble and a deep mystery on the one hand and by economy a divorce and second marriage are made legitimate?
Now that we have looked at the question of Orthodox theology of marriage, at least in brief, my question remains:
How is the Orthodox teaching on indissolubility and economy not a “fudge” on the teaching of Christ?
If the marriage bond is broken by mere sin and we are all sinful…
I agree, Father….I can’t even wrap my head around this one. Yes, we are all sinful. Does that mean we can also break the commands against murder and theft and adultery? After all, we are all sinners…. Sorry, y’all, that is too much sophistical casuistry for my wee little head.
Good point, also, Father, about the Orthodox document’s distortion of Catholic teaching on marriage — the setting up of a straw-man in order to score yet another polemical point against that infamous Latin Legalism (shudder, shudder).
One gets so, so, so weary of this sort of thing. Again, I ask: Why can’t Orthodox apologists ever extol their own church without in the same breath taking a potshot at mine? When people are completely secure in the truth of their own positions, do they feel compelled to define themselves, constantly and relentlessly, against the other guy? This is also an observation, not a criticism. I for one would heartily welcome an argument for the Orthodox position couched in entirely positive terms, without all the jabs vs. The Big Bad West, the Great Papal Bogeyman, etc. etc.
Fr. J —
1. If the marriage bond is broken by mere sin and we are all sinful, then what did Christ mean when he said marriage was indissoluble?
2. There is an obvious complication with economy. It does come across as a kind of fudge on indissolubility. Can it really be that marriage is indissoluble and a deep mystery on the one hand and by economy a divorce and second marriage are made legitimate?
I think a look at Matthew 19:6 might be useful here (and which might clarify some of what is said under section 5 of the link, “Holiness and the Dissolubility of Marriage”). The ESV translates this as “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The Greek, and as much of a word-for-word translation as I can muster:
ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
“For this reason, no more are they two but one flesh. That which therefore God paired together, let man/mankind not separate.”
μὴ χωριζέτω is a third-person singular present active negative imperative (syntax: present to show progressive/repeated action, since outside of the indicative mood tense does not communicate anything about time, imperative because it’s a command/prohibition), “let ____ not separate/be separating” with ἄνθρωπος (without the definite article, “a man” or “mankind”) as its subject. What’s interesting about this is there are two ways Koine Greek expresses a prohibition: negating an imperative with μὴ, or the so-called prohibitive subjunctive. A categorical prohibition would be expressed with a prohibitive subjunctive (per Blass/DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), e.g. Matthew 7:6:
μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν
δῶτε here is a second person plural subjunctive active aorist negated with μὴ; “(You, all of you) are not to give the holy thing to the dogs”, and since the tense is aorist, my Greek teacher would have wanted me to add, “once and for all.”
By contrast, a negated imperative in the present tense suggests that the action which is negated is something which is already ongoing.
The point of all of this is, Matthew 19:6 tells us very little about marriage having indissolubility as a fundamental, essential characteristic; he doesn’t say something like ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος οὺ δύναται χωρίζει/χωρίσαι “That which therefore God paired together, man/mankind is not able to separate”. If anything, it suggests that, on its own merits, it is not dissoluble (since presumably otherwise he wouldn’t have to command an ongoing action to stop), with the implication of “one flesh” (σὰρξ μία) being that it is as though flesh being ripped apart when it happens.
From that standpoint, Matthew 19:6 and what it says about indissolubility might be better understand as a pastoral statement, something like “Mankind is doing this because it doesn’t understand what happens when it is done; for your own good, therefore, stop it, because you are causing yourself grievous injury.”
That grievous injury is still going to occur in a fallen world nonetheless. Annulment solves the problem by saying the injury doesn’t exist because there was never a single flesh in the first place; economy solves the problem, not by “fudging” but by acknowledging the injury and the need for it to be healed, while also admonishing that it’s the kind of injury after which one is never back to 100%. The end result is, for all practical purposes, the same.
Richard
Emoticon after “mankind” an automatic parsing by the WordPress software; I hope it’s clear that that should actually be the close of a parenthetical.
Thanks, Richard, this is very helpful.
So, from what you are saying, the Orthodox do not hold to indissolubility of marriage in the first place?
Please excuse that last half-thought. Didnt mean to submit it.
I really am trying to wrap my mind around the Orthodox point of view but am having trouble.
From a logical standpoint, it seems that there are three statements which cannot stand together:
1. Marriage is indissoluble of itself.
2. Sin dissolves the marriage.
3. Economy recognizes the dissolution.
And this is the Orthodox way around it?:
1. Christ did not declare marriage indissoluble but recommended against divorce because it causes the couple harm.
2. Sin dissolves marriage
3. Economy recognizes the dissolution.
Fr. J —
I don’t know that any Orthodox would agree with your formulation of their understanding. What I posted is an examination of what the Greek text actually says, and is intended to clarify the following from section 5 of the link I posted, particularly the bolded portion:
Doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is based on its holiness. The holiness and indissolubility of marriage exalt monogamy. References are often made to the Old Testament in this regard (Mal. 2, 14).
But as mystery or sacrament the Christian marriage is undoubtedly confronted with the “fallen” state of mankind. It is presented as the unachievable ideal. But there is a distinct difference between a “sacrament” and an “ideal”, for the first is “an experience involving not only man, but one in which he acts in communion with God”, in this he becomes a partner of the Holy Spirit while remaining human with his weaknesses and faults.
The theory of the indissolubility of marriage has a strong pedagogical significance. The motivation Christ gives is a command. Those who commit themselves to the covenant of marriage should do all they can not to separate, as they have God to thank for their oneness. But the additional motivation: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10, 9; Math. 19, 6) does not signify a magical adherence. In every mystery or sacrament, excluding baptism, the exertion of man’s free will is required. The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill”. But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man. In both cases he commits grievous sin.
Richard
Re: Post #36…
From that standpoint, Matthew 19:6 and what it says about indissolubility might be better understood as a pastoral statement…
English is my first language, I promise…
Ok, your link says the Orthodox hold to indissolubility as having “a strong pedagogical significance,” but then defines it is “a divine request.”
That is fine, if that is what Orthodox theology says–it is a request or recommendation.
But that is not the meaning of the term indissolubility. Indissolubility means what it say, marriage cannot be dissolved.
So, still there is a logical problem. Marriage cannot be indissoluble and simultaneously disolvable by sin, the will of the couple or the decree of the Church. So, either the Orthodox do not hold that marriage is actually indissoluble or they make a charitable concession–which I would call a fudge.
Let’s just agree that either marriage is indissoluble or it isnt. But it cant be both indissoluble and also dissoluble by either human sin or by Church decree.
So, is the teaching that Christ made a request instead of a command or ??
As for the question of Christ’s intent, “Let no man separate what God has joined,” we need to make some reasonable distinctions:
He could have meant:
1. Man must not separate or
2. Man ought not separate or
3. It is preferable that man not separate
The first is the Catholic position. It is imperative.
The second is a moral judgment on divorce, so it is still out of the question.
The third, seems closest to the Orthodox position. If this is how the Orthodox understand the meaning of the passage, I can see how they justify divorce. I can respect that, though I dont agree with it. But the third meaning cannot be called indissolubility.
Speaking not only as a Catholic but as a child of divorce: I’m sorry, but I cannot see how Our Lord’s words can be twisted to mean: Divorce and remarriage are permissible up to three times for up to 20 reasons.
If He had meant anything remotely like that, why would the disciples have registered shock and surprise? After all, if He meant to allow divorce, how (materially) did that differ from the status quo they were already used to?
But the third meaning cannot be called indissolubility.
No indeed. I think it is called “eisegesis.” ;)
Fr. J —
The verb is in the imperative mood. It is a prohibitive command of an progressive/repeated action, that is to say, something which is already ongoing. What it is not is a categorical prohibition, which would be a negated aorist in the subjunctive mood, but that is not the same as giving it the force of only a recommendation or a request.
What Bp. Athenagoras is saying is that the indissolubility of a marriage is a function of its holiness, which is itself predicated upon those entering into the marriage exercising their free will to choose to subordinate their will to each other and to God. This is not the same as saying that marriage is not dissoluble; the fallen reality is simply that this does not always happen perfectly. The Orthodox practice of allowing remarriage by economy is a pastoral acknowledgment of this reality, as well as an acknowledgment of the great wounding which takes place when this occurs.
Richard
Diane:
I recommend we keep anecdotal evidence out of it. Speaking as an Orthodox and a child of divorce myself, I can only tell you that it is hard enough to have my parents tell me their marriage should have never happened (and by extension, that I should never have been born); to have that be the material and understood reality would be something else entirely.
Richard
I recommend we keep anecdotal evidence out of it.
Fair enough, but then we get
Speaking as an Orthodox and a child of divorce myself, I can only tell you that it is hard enough to have my parents tell me their marriage should have never happened (and by extension, that I should never have been born); to have that be the material and understood reality would be something else entirely.
Talk about hit and run!
Richard, your exegesis aside, there is a fundamental problem with a teaching that upholds indissolubility and then dissolves marriages or at least holds that some marriages are dissolved by sin. There is a fundamental logical problem here which forces the Orthodox to fudge.
So far, we have been given a couple of ways that Orthodox theology fudges on marital indissolubility.
1. A reinterpretation of Jesus’ words to understand that he was not giving a hard and fast teaching but giving a recommendation, a suggestion or giving some kind of pastoral advice. If this is Orthodox teaching, that is fine. I dont agree with it, but that is fine. But, one cannot say that Christ was giving a suggestion, a recommendation, or pastoral advice AND claim to hold to the teaching of marital indissolubility. One or the other, please.
2. The second fudge is to profess a belief in the indissolubility of marriage but to recognize that couples, by their own sin within the relationship actually dissolve the marriage and that economy is the Church’s recognition of that break. Again, there is a logical problem here. If marriage is really indissoluble as a divine act, then no amount of human sin can undo it.
3. A third case is altogether different and much closer to the Catholic position on annulment (if I understand it correctly): that by human sinfulness it sometimes does not happen that the two actually submit to each other. As presented, it is vague, but as I read your summary of the bishop, this seems more reasonable (at least to me). I am referring to this paragraph of yours:
What Bp. Athenagoras is saying is that the indissolubility of a marriage is a function of its holiness, which is itself predicated upon those entering into the marriage exercising their free will to choose to subordinate their will to each other and to God. This is not the same as saying that marriage is not dissoluble; the fallen reality is simply that this does not always happen perfectly.
As for your personal history, I am sorry to hear of the divorce of your parents and the personal pain that caused you. If in their own pain they implied that you should never have been born (a ghastly thing to hear from ones parents!), let me assure you that God does not make mistakes and that he brings good out of imperfect situations.
I must say this, however, that Catholic annulment has nothing to say about whether in the divine plan a child should or should not have been born. Catholic teaching is that all children born whether into a marriage or out of wedlock are the creation of God and desired and loved by him. So, please do not distort that Catholic teaching on annulment by implying that it indicates that a child of the annulled marriage should not have been born.
Annulment also does not say that a marriage did not occur, for a civil marriage did occur. Annulment only states that a sacramental marriage did not occur. The Catholic Church does not disregard civil marriage, as some falsely assume. This is why a couple civilly married does not later “get married in the Church” but has their “marriage blessed.” The technical term for this is “convalidation.” Convalidation is the sacramentalizing of a previously existing marriage. While civil marriage alone is not adequate for a baptized Catholic, it is still a marriage. So, there can be no implication that the children of such a civil marriage are illegitimate or should never have been born. Again, annulment is the recognition that a Catholic sacrament did not take place, but it does not say the couple were never married.
Fr J.
“Convalidation is the sacramentalizing of a previously existing marriage. While civil marriage alone is not adequate for a baptized Catholic, it is still a marriage. ”
Really? Now I am really confused. So why is it that I can (and frequently do) marry in church Catholics who are divorced from pre-existing civil unions? I have always thought (and told them) that the Church did not recognize merely civil marriage where one of the parties at least was Catholic (i.e. baptized such and not having made a formal act of apostasy from the Catholic Church) and that therefore tey are free to marry in Church. Are such second marriages a Catholic version of economy, dissolving a real but non-sacramental marriage in favour of a sacramental one?
My own understanding was that since the 1917 Code of Canon Law the Church made no distinction between sacramental and merely natural marriage as far as the baptised (or at least Catholics) are concerned, and that all marriages between two baptised persons were considered either sacramental or simply nul. At least that seems to be the theology/jurisprudence as it is commonly understood here in Europe. Of course it is problematic, since it was not designed to take into account the prevailing situation where most of the baptised (here at least) seem to be Christian in name only. God alone will judge, but the mind set and mores of most of Europe’s baptised Catholics are very far from the spiritual ideals taught by the Church. So much so indeed that I have long had the discomfot of feeling sure that many if not most of the marriages I celebrate (as you yourself seem to concede above) fullfill emminently the conditions for a future annulment (alas it is usually not possible to justify this “gut feeling” with concrete proof sufficiently to refuse to perform the ceremony – we are told by those wiser and more experienced that one must give the future spouses the benefit of the doubt).
If you are righ, however, then it is indeed possible to diffeentiate between a merely natural bond (one could say in Latin “honestum”) and a sacramental one. Would the common practice of remarrying civil divorcees in Church not then be precisely a kind of economy? I am no canonist and would be very interested to know the sources backing your asserrtion.
As for the Orthodox practice of economy, I pesonally am well disposed towards it as a means of not imprisoning people who have failed morally – and where that failure is acknowledged by both themselves and the Church – to a situation of being perpetual outcasts in the Church. However, I have to be frank and say that as it is practiced in Orthodox countries it seems to be very far from the merciful dispensation for eceptional circumstances envisioned by the Greek Fathers (and purposefully not condemned by Trent – a fact which seems to me to be of great significance doctrinally speaking). In Greece at least, divorced couples are routinely remaried a second and third time in Church without even the batting of an ecclesiastical eyebrow, let alone inquiry into who is wronged and who the guilty party. Moreover, I have never heard of any ceremony being performed for them but that for first mariages, crowning and all. The service for a second mariage, with its penitential character, may be used in some places but generally seems to have been consigned to the museum section dealing with intereting liturgical relics. This “economy within the economy” does not help the Latin Church come to a sympathetc consideration of the whole principle of economy…
And yet we have to admit that our practice if not our theology is in a mess. The evolution of contemporary mentalities has left the Christian concept of marriage high and dry, while most of those who come for marriage preparation are “cultural Catholics” unaware of, or indifferent to, the need for a higher vantage point for those who come to Church for a blessing. A few months of preparation, usually with inadequate resources to hand, are almost useless as a remedy for this. Hence the fact that annulment too seems to progress towards becoming the norm rather than the exception. Where can we go in the future? You are right to raise hard-hitting questions to our Orthodox brethren, but I think we should beware of seeming to adopt a “holier than thou” tone of dismissive scorn. We are ourselves in no position to be smug.
The irritating and misplaced smiley in the above text is, evidently, not of my devising!
Fr. Paul,
To marry a Catholic couple previously civilly married to each other is a convalidation. This is the blessing of an already existing marriage.
In order to marry baptized Catholics who were civilly married to other people without benefit of the sacrament requires an annulment called “Lack of Form,” which is virtually automatic. So, yes, the Catholic Church recognizes these as marriages, just not sacramental ones.
For the record I hold no scorn for the Orthodox, I just find their approach to marriage inconsistent/illogical.
As for Catholic marriage being in disarray, well at least we have the lowest divorce rate in the US. It isn’t perfect, but we must be doing something right in these nightmarish times.
Richard: If you object to my anecdotal reference (all six words of it), then please simply ignore it. Could you address, instead, the main point of my comment?
If [Our Lord] had meant [“let no man put asunder” to mean “divorce up to three times for up to 20 reasons,”] why would the disciples have registered shock and surprise? After all, if He meant to allow divorce, how (materially) did that differ from the status quo they were already used to?
Of your charity, if you would be so kind, would you address this question, which has nothing to do with anecdotal evidence?
Thanks!
Diane
Richard,
After reading the article you linked to I am more confused then ever. The article seems to contradict itself many times. I am with Fr. J; either marriage is indissoluble or it is not. If it is indissoluble then nothing can dissolve it; not sin, not adultery, not a civil or ecclesiastical decree, nothing.
The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill”. But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man.
Wait a minute now; “thou shall not kill” is not a request. It doesn’t get more proscriptive that “shall not.” That sinful man can act in direct contradiction to a divine command is the very essence of sin. God to Adam – “Thou shall not eat of the tree.” Eve to Adam – “Have some fruit.” God to Adam – “you ate of the tree; you’re gonna get it now!” Just because we can do something in sin does not mean that God does not command against it; and going against God’s command has consequences, eternal consequences.
And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19, 9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.
I’m going to come right out and say it. This is the same BS justification I get from Protestants. Now we can go on without end as to what exactly the “Matthean exception” is; whether Jesus is giving an exception for divorce only or permitting divorce and re-marriage or something else entirely. That is all beside the point in my opinion. I’ll pose the same question to you that I give to the Protestants; why is Matthew the normative passage, why not Mark 10 or Luke 16:18 where there is no exception? Is it because of a perceived loop-hole?
…economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations…
This phrase seems very close to the Catholic saying that “the Church can dispense from her laws but not from God’s.” But just when things almost make sense:
…“economia” is for the Orthodox Church a notion that cannot be compared to “dispensation” in the Roman Catholic Church. Dispensation is an anticipated exception, which provides a juridical norm parallel to the official regulation.
It seems to me that the difference is that a dispensation is asking permission before doing something whereas “economia” is doings something and then asking for forgiveness afterward. If this is the case then it’s starting to make a little sense. Additionally, if my analogy holds then I can see why the Orthodox claim to be able to suspend even God’s express command. After all, “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness then for permission.”
It is the precise goal of economia that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion…
One final point; the Catholic Church does not desire to ban anyone forever from communion. Forgiveness for sin is always available. However, what cannot be allowed is the continuation of the sin. Allowing re-marriage after divorce, even with penance, is like forgiving a repentant car thief but allowing him to continue to drive the car he stole. Actually it’s worse because a car is not a Sacrament but Marriage is.
Richard,
Your analysis of Matthew 19 is interesting. I don’t know that I can agree with your conclusions but as I know no Greek I cannot argue the point.
I would be interested if you could give the same treatment to 1 Corinthians 7:10,11. I would be interested in how you interpret “But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” Does the Greek in this case qualify as an absolute prohibition?
However, what cannot be allowed is the continuation of the sin.
“Go and sin no more.” Sounds positively…Biblical.
Dominical, even. ;)
BTW, James, that post was a keeper. Absolutely brilliant.
Another thing…I know no Greek. (My DH knows quite a bit, but he has not managed to pass his kowledge to me my osmosis…darn!) However, I am told that the so-called “Matthean exception” was for porneia. And I am also told that porneia does not simply mean “marital infidelity.”
Now, as I say, what do I know? But, seeing as porneia is the root of several modern English words, none of which means “marital infidelity,” I can well understand why Catholic scholars might object to the claim that Our Lord means to allow divorce and remarriage (the latter not even mentioned in the phrase in question) merely for marital infidelity. Especially since, I am told, there was another Greek word that actually meant–and was commonly used to denote–adultery.
IOW, it seems this solicitude for precise Greek translation operates somewhat selectively. ;)
Scott Hahn has an illuminating article about this in the Ignatius Study Bible. But, as I am far too lazy to type it in here, I will link instead to Dave Armstrong’s similarly illuminating online article on the subject:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/05/biblical-evidence-for-prohibition-of.html
Diane
Oops, above link does not do what Dr. Hahn did–a close textual analysis. I guess I will have to type in the Hahn article after all, since I cannot find it online. :( Well, I’ll wait till the kids are in bed, when I’ll have more time…and will confine my typing to only the most salient passages, for the twofold sake of (a) protecting my fellow comboxers from eyestrain and (b) protecting myself from Carpal tunnel syndrome.
Catching up…
#47: My point is no more and no less that I can adduce my own anecdotal evidence, and it’s neither useful nor illuminating.
#48: There is a fundamental logical problem here which forces the Orthodox to fudge.
Again, not as we understand it, but I do not get the impression that there’s anything I’m going to be able to tell you that will convince you otherwise. I don’t have much else to say that won’t have us going around in the same circles we’ve already lapped around a few times. The last thing I have to say about this is what I said at the get-go: either way you’ve got a pastoral problem that you can only solve by some concession to human weakness. I might suggest, without intending a negative connotation or the falling back on oft-used stereotypes of East and West, that Catholicism solves the problem legally (“The injury never occurred”), and Orthodoxy solves the problem medically (“Heal the injury”), and both are consistent, at least on paper, with our own understandings. Modern application in both cases may or may not leave something to be desired, but this is a pastoral issue, to say nothing of severe cultural problem, in and of itself.
#52: I think we can be reasonably certain Jesus meant what he said, don’t you? That said, seen anybody walking around missing eyes because they’ve plucked them out?
53: “thou shall not kill” is not a request. It doesn’t get more proscriptive that “shall not.”
I think what you’re getting at is an issue of the Metropolitan’s writing style in English, which I’m not going to argue. But nonetheless, God says οὐ φονεύσεις “You will not kill” not οὐ δύνασαι φονεύει “You will not be able to kill”. This commandment, in other words, does not bring about an ontological change in life; man can still exercise his free will and do so, and there are those who have done so, repented, and been readmitted to Communion after doing so without a legal decision that the murder never happened.
In terms of your “Matthean exception” question — is there a perceived conflict between the three accounts? I’m afraid I don’t really understand the question.
#54:
τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ μενέτω ἄγαμος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι.
As literal a word-for-word translation as I can muster and have it be comprehensible:
And to those having been married, I command/transmit the message, it is not I but the Lord, a wife from (her) husband is not to separate.* And if she separates, let her remain unmarried or to her husband let her be reconciled. And a man is not to leave/abandon/dismiss (his) wife.
* – χωρισθῆναι is in the passive voice, but it was evidently common, when using this verb in particular, for it to have an active meaning when it was a wife who was the subject. Potentially it could be understood as being in the middle voice rather than a passive, e.g. “a wife from her husband is not to separate for her own benefit” or “…is not to cause a separation”.
A couple of things to point out here: παραγγέλλω is the main verb of this entire passage, in the present tense, indicative mood, active voice, first-person singular. The basic meaning is to “transmit a message,” the general idea being “to give orders,” but it’s also the word used to indicate what a doctor prescribes, and it can also be used to mean “exhort”, “encourage,” “cheer on”. It also has the political connotation of summoning one’s partisans. It’s the word Paul uses in 1 Timothy 6:13 to introduce what he’s about to tell him what to do, and also the word used in v.17 when he tells Timothy what to do with the wealthy. (You would also not be wrong if you were to see the word “angel” in the root form of the verb, αγγέλλω — the Greek noun that “angel” anglicizes is a verbal noun meaning “messenger”.) I would suggest that on the whole, there is a positive connotation of summoning one’s allies to action rather than laying down the law to a wrongdoer.
I said that παραγγέλλω is in the first person singular; Greek doesn’t need a personal pronoun except for emphasis to clarify ambiguity because the personal ending already tells you who the subject is in most cases. Thus, ἐγώ εἰμι (a la John 14:6) is perhaps better translated as “*I* am, and I mean *I*”, since εἰμι would already be “I am” on its own. Paul’s being very particular here about keeping it in the first person while making it clear it is the Lord speaking, not him, almost to the extent of wanting it to seem like a quote.
What I will also note is that Paul certainly tells the women who separate to remain ἄγαμος, but it’s also to those in an ἄγαμος state that he has just told (using the imperative mood, I might add) to marry if they cannot control themselves in verse 9.
#56: Here’s the verse:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.
Word-for-word:
And I say to you all that whatever man leaves his wife except on account of unchastity and marries another woman, he is committing adultery.
πορνεία has a fairly broad set of meanings; unchastity, prostitution, licentiousness; sometimes it’s used metaphorically to mean “idolatry”. μοιχᾶται is the word which, used this way, has the specific meaning of adultery as in marital infidelity. The meaning of the verb in the active voice is “debauch”, basically, but here it is in what is clearly not the active voice and pretty clearly the middle voice (meaning, broadly, that the subject either is performing the action reflexively, self-interestedly, or causatively) since trying to construe a passive meaning (passive and middle voices share the same endings in the present tense in Greek) makes no sense. So, middle voice here basically means “causes debauchery” which is then used specifically to mean “commit adultery”.
Essentially, adultery is πορνεία but πορνεία is not necessarily adultery.
The other interesting thing about μοιχᾶται as used here is that with the relative clause of characteristic which precedes it, being the present tense (conveying present time, action performed progressively or repeatedly) it really convicts those listening. “He is committing adultery, right here and right now and over and over again, *whoever* has left his wife and married another woman except for reasons of unchastity” is kind of the force of it.
With that, we’re well over the 50-comment threshold, and I will gently suggest that we move on.
Richard
“With that, we’re well over the 50-comment threshold, and I will gently suggest that we move on.”
Not a bad idea, Richard! Comments are closed.
[…] focus the discussion on this article of the late Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby. It’s come up before here at Eirenikon. The text of the article comes from the blog Torn Notebook (part 1 and part 2) – and, by […]