I’ve been thinking a bit about this topic lately, and since it came up recently in the comments to this post, I thought I’d 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 the way, the comments there are well worth reading through.
Archbishop Elias Zoghby, A Voice from the Byzantine East, R. Bernard trans., (Newton, MA: Eparchy of Newton, 1992), pp. 163-169.
The Indissolubility of Marriage
The problem which probably causes more anguish to young married people than birth control is that of the innocent spouse in the prime of life (usually the young lady, so we shall use the feminine form throughout this chapter to denote the wronged spouse) who is deserted by her partner and contracts a new union. The innocent party goes to her parish priest or bishop for a solution but hears: “I can do nothing for you. Pray and resign yourself to living alone for the rest of your life because you cannot marry again and expect to remain in the good graces of the Church.”
Such an unrealistic response is an insult to the young person’s inherent dignity! Furthermore, it presupposes an heroic virtue, a rare faith and an exceptional temperament. This almost abnormal way of life is not for everyone. After all, the young person was married in the first place because she didn’t feel called to perpetual continence. Now she is being cornered into contracting a new and illegitimate union outside the Church so as to avoid physical and emotional pressure. This good and normal Catholic now “officially” becomes a renegade and is even tortured by her own conscience. Only one course of action is left open: either become an exceptional soul overnight or perish!
Nothing but common sense tells us that perpetual continence is not the answer for the majority of Christians in such a predicament. In other words, we Church officials know that we are leaving these young and innocent victims without an answer. We ask them to depend upon that faith which works miracles, but we forget such faith is not given to everyone. Many of us, even we who are priests and bishops, still have a long struggle and a great amount of prayer ahead of us before we will even be able to approach it, let alone attain it!
The question presented us today by these disturbed people is, therefore, the following: “Does the Church have the right to tell an innocent member of the laity, whatever the nature of the problem disturbing him: ‘Solve it yourself! I have no solution for your case,’ or indeed can the Church provide in this case an exceptional solution which she knows to be suited only for a tiny minority?”
The Church has certainly received sufficient authority from Christ, its founder, to offer all its children the means of salvation proportionate to their strength. Heroism, the state of perfection—these have never been imposed by Christ under pain of eternal perdition. “If you wish to be perfect,” Christ says, but only “if you wish…”.
The Church, therefore, has sufficient authority to protect the innocent party against the consequences of the other partner’s wrongdoing. It does not seem normal that perpetual continence, which belongs to the state of perfection alone, can be imposed upon the innocent spouse as an obloigation or a punishment simply because the other spouse has proven to be false! The Eastern Churches have always known that they possessed the authority to help the innocent victim and, what is more, they have always made use of it.
The marriage bond has certainly been rendered indissoluble by the positive law of Christ. Yet, as the Gospel of St. Matthew points out: “except in circumstances of adultery” (cf. Matthew 5.32, 9.6). It is the duty of the Church to make sense of this parenthetical clause. If the Church of Rome has interpreted it in a restrictive sense, this is not true in the Christian East where the Church has interpreted it, from the very first centuries of its existence, in favor of possible remarriage for the innocent spouse.
It is true that the Council of Trent, in its twenty-fourth session (canon 7 of De Matrimonio) sanctioned the restrictive Roman interpretation, but it is well known that the final formula adopted by Trent for this canon had been purposely altered so as not to exclude the Eastern Christian tradition. This tradition followed (and still follows) a practice contrary to that of the Church of Rome. History gives credit for this act to the representatives from the area of Venice [1] who were well acquainted with the Greek tradition, which was founded upon the interpretation of the Greek Fathers and even of some Western Fathers, such as St. Ambrose of Milan.
We know how the Eastern Fathers tried to discourage widows and widowers from contracting second marriages, following in this the counsel of the Apostle Paul; but they never intended to deprive the innocent spouse, who had been unjustly abandoned, of the right to remarry. This tradition, preserved in and exercised by the East, was in no way dissolved in the six centuries of union. There is no reason why it could not be brought back into use today and adopted by Western Catholics. The progress of patristic studies has, in effect, put in bold relief the doctrines of the Eastern Fathers who were no less competent moralists and exegetes than the Western Fathers.
Pastoral solicitude for the wronged is suggested in another way by Western canonists. By means of a subtle casuistry, which sometimes borders upon acrobatics, they have devoted themselves with diligent application to uncovering every impediment capable of vitiating the marriage bond. This is done because of their pastoral concern. Sometimes, for example, it happens that somebody suddenly discovers an impediment of affinity after ten or twenty years of marriage (one which was unsuspected all the while!) and now this impediment is permitted to afford a complete resolution of the “problem” as if by magic! Though canon lawyers find this state of affairs both natural and normal, those of us who are pastors have come to realize that our people are very often confused and scandalized by this.
It is not the tradition of the Eastern Fathers, as outlined above, more suitable than the impediments to marriage in extending Divine Mercy toward some Christian spouses? [2] Undoubtedly, inconsiderate action cannot be tolerated here either; abuses are always possible. But, the abuse of authority does not destroy authority.
During this age of ecumenism and dialogue, can the Catholic Church recognize this longstanding tradition of the Eastern Churches? Or, what is more important to it: Can its theologians apply themselves to the study of this problem and provide a remedy for the anguish of the innocent party, permanently abandoned by his or her spouse, and to deliver this person from a danger constituting a grace menace to the soul?
My statements above are of a strictly pastoral nature. My aim is to help the Western Catholic Church discover a solution for the problem faced by so many young marrieds who are doomed to a single life of loneliness should they decide to separate. As it is now, through no fault of their own, they are forced to endure continence as a matter of obligation.
In addition, I have clearly affirmed the immutable principle of the permanency of the married state. In doing this, I have purposely avoided using the word “divorce” because the Catholic use of this word clearly denotes an infraction of the unchangeable principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
The indissolubility is so deeply embedded in the traditions of both East and West, Orthodox as well as Catholic, that it can never be questioned. In effect, the Orthodox tradition itself has always held marriage indissoluble as the union of Christ and His Spouse, the Church, a union which remains the type exemplaire of the monogamous sacramental marriage of Christians. In Orthodox theology, divorce is nothing but a dispensation allowed the innocent party in certain, well-defined instances and from motives of purely pastoral concern, in virtue of what Orthodox theology calls the “principle of economy”, which means “dispensation” or, more accurately, “condescension”. This dispensation does not exclude or set aside the principle of indissolubility. This principle is even used in much the same way as the dispensation of a valid, consummated marriage are allowed by the Western Catholic Church through the Petrine Privilege. We are not speaking here of abuses; they are always possible, but they do not change the theological reality.
Therefore, it is this “dispensation” on behalf of the innocent spouse that I suggest be employed by the Catholic Church of the Western tradition. When I referred to the traditional Eastern interpretation of Matthew 5 and 19, I saw the eventual possibility of additional reasons for dispensations to supplement those already admitted by Western Catholics, such as fornication and the abandonment of one spouse by the other, so as to keep away the peril of damnation which menaces the innocent spouse. Such a dispensation would not cast any doubt upon the indissolubility of the marriage bond any more than do the other dispensations.
Such a proposal is not fruitless, despite what certain militant Roman canonists contend, beacuse it rests upon the indisputable authority of the blessed Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Churches—these same saints who are annually commemorated in the Roman liturgical calendar—who cannot be accused of having given up truth while interpreting the Lord’s words, or of interpreting the Lord’s words to suit their personal ambitions.
It is the perspective of the universal fidelity of the East, as well as of the West, that the Roman Church has never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern ruling favorable to the remarriage of the innocent marital partner, either after the separation of the two great Christian halves of the Church, or during their long centuries of unity.
To anyone who has observed the Eastern Catholic communities in union with Rome, it goes without saying that in these days—and it grieves me to admit it—almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches follow contemporary Latin-Roman discipline and practices with regard to remarriage.
As for the Eastern way of viewing divorce and remarriage, objective evidence proves that the Fathers and Doctors of the East who developed the basic tenets of all Christian doctrine could not have been influenced by politics or any other aspect of Byzantine civil or legal tradition in interpreting Christ’s words in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 as they did. To assume this would be to forget what the universal Church owes to their knowledge and holiness.
The Justinian Code which was promulgated toward the end of the sixth century adopted the Eastern discipline on marriage. But it would scarcely have influenced Origen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil [3], St. Epiphanius [4], and others who lived some 350 years before this Code was ever conceived, as some Latin canonists believe. The Justinian Code merely reflected the doctrine and practices of the Eastern Churches.
As we have seen, long before the schism with Rome, Eastern Christianity adopted the more lenient interpretation of the law (favoring the innocent party) and also put it into practice. And yet the Easterners were never condemned for this—-not during the first thousand years when they were in full and visible communion with the Roman See; not by the Ecumenical Councils over which presided the representatives of the Bishop of Rome and were attended by both Eastern and Western bishops; and not by any other high authorities in the undivided Church. These facts alone should be enough to prove that the Roman Church never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline in this matter.
The Church of the East has always followed this tradition of tolerance of divorce and has remained faithful to it. The West maintained it for many hundreds of years with the positive approval of many of its bishops, popes, and councils, and in fact never attempted to condemn it in the East, even after cessation of its practice in the West.
In conclusion, we reiterate that this is an exegetical, canonical and pastoral problem which cannot be ignored. As for the opportunity of permitting a new reason (or reasons) for dispensation analogous to those already introduced in the Roman Church by reason of the Petrine Privilege, this decision remains in the hands of the Church.
Eirenikon 
I can only speak for myself, but it strikes me that. in the very narrow case of the abandoned spouse, the mariage *could* be annuled in the Western sense in that the guilty party never intended to conform to his or her obligations and thus contracted the bond fraudulently. But I would expect serious safeguards such as an extended chaste waiting period and patriarchal validation of the annulment.
Actually, my brother-in-law experienced exactly what Abp. Zoghby is talking about.
My bro-in-law’s wife announced suddenly, after two years of marriage, that she didn’t want to be married any longer. It took my bro-in-law completely by surprise, even though there had been a certain unseriousness right from the outset. (At the bachelor party, my bro-in-law told his brother, my husband, that he and his fiancee were either going to get married or break up; it was almost “six of one, half a dozen of the other.” However, over time, my bro-in-law became more and more serious about the marriage, while his wife apparently became less and less serious.)
Anyway…my bro-in-law did obtain an annulment, on the grounds (amply verified) that at least one party and probably both did not enter the marriage with any idea of its being permanent, let alone sacramental.
I do know of other cases like this (as well as of cases where tthe annulment was denied). Given the fact that intent at the time of the marriage definitely weighs as a factor with diocesan tribunals…I really do not see how Abp. Zoghby is justified in pulling out this “hardest case” scenario. It’s a bit of a cheap shot, IMHO. With all due respect to the memory of the late archbishop. :)
http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
This might be of some help.
M.
Diane,
I don’t the Archbishop was taking a cheap shot at anyone. Like many teachers, he offered a very simple, and I think he would acknowledge even a simplistic, example not to condemn or criticize the Latin tradition but to help his readers understand the tradition of the Christian East–a tradition that is at least as old and as venerable as the Latin tradition. It is also worth noting that the difference marriage traditions has never been a source of division (or as near as I can recall, polemic) between East and West.
In Christ,
+FrG
Father, I acknowledge that “cheap shot” was the wrong term. But I am a bit chary of these “hardest case” scenarios, which really seem to load the dice, IMHO.
We all know hard cases; perhaps we are the hard cases. But the vast majority of cases are a good deal messier (not as black-and-white as desertion) — and usually not quite so hard, perhaps. That is why, in this age of no-fault divorce, diocesan tribunals look at psychological factors such as intent at the time of the marriage, not just at classic factors like coercion and non-consummation. IOW: Perhaps, as Michael obliquely suggested, there is no reason to load the dice. We needn’t resort to a “hardest case” argument if in fact it usually doesn’t come to that.
Ultimately, though, I don’t think the question should be posited as: understanding Eastern praxis vs. understanding Western praxis. Because this is a subject on which Our Lord Himself has spoken quite forcefully, I think the question we all should be asking is: What does Jesus want? And what has He actually told us He wants?
Frankly, I do not see how either the Eastern tolerance for serial monogamy nor the recent Western penchant for abuse of the annulment process can be easily squared with Our Lord’s words. And that is putting it mildly.
Do HIS Words not even matter in all of this?
As for the Catholic / Orthodox contretemps on this subject: I’m sorry, but I think is this one area where Catholic teaching has got it right, and Orthodox teaching hasn’t. (Speaking strictly of official teaching here…leaving praxis out of the equation for the moment.)
You know, we papists do occasionally get something right. ;)
God bless,
Diane
Dear Diane,
I do not think that the Catholic position is any better in fact. A Decree of Nullity, as you know, is a reasoned judgment that a valid marriage never took place. Yet, the second marriage is seen as a second marriage and a penitential marriage. There is something of an anomaly in that way of approaching divorce and remarriage that is just as confusing as the contemporary Orthodox position can be.
M.
A Decree of Nullity, as you know, is a reasoned judgment that a valid marriage never took place.
Agreed.
Yet, the second marriage is seen as a second marriage and a penitential marriage.
Gosh, Mary, where does that come from? It’s not in the Catechism or in any Catholic Teaching I’ve ever seen.
A deacon friend of mine works for our diocesan tribunal; I think it would come as a complete surprise to him that a marriage contracted after a decree of nullity would be considered a second and penitential marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
I agree with Och that divorce rates are waaaay too high across the board, for both Catholics and Orthodox, and I lament the abuses of the annulment process that have occurred over the past 40 years. But I do not see how you can posit an exact equivalence between official Catholic and Orthodox Teaching on this matter. Not unless words have ceased to mean anything!
Dear Diane,
We all know how diligent you are about being right all the time but sometimes praxis makes even more perfect.
Many of the good pastors in the Catholic Churches where I live excel in marriage preparation. I do not know one of them who, in preparing couples who are intending to enter into a second marriage, do not stress the penitential nature of the planned union. Why? Because the divorce rate for second marriages is even higher than that for initial unions, or Catholic non-marriages. Most of the time an annulment gives people the illusion that they did nothing wrong, nor do they have anything to be sorry for and very often they carry this unintentional and uninformed hubris into the next round of marital bliss-ters.
Also in the years where I had experience working with couples seeking annulments or second and third marriages, the penitential aspect of the third marriage was stressed even more and very often a long period of secular counseling was also required before the Church would recognize the third marriage.
So it appears that there is more than a little de facto recognition that the annulment process has failed ordinary Catholics in many ways.
Will you find all this entered into the CCC? Not yet. But the Church is no stranger to the idea that praxis precedes the rule.
M.
Far be it from me to intrude on this conversation, but perhaps the voice of a third party will help. I think Diane’s point is that the Catholic Church teaches that only one sacramental marriage is possible. Second secular marriages are not second sacramental marriages, since the “first” sacramental marriage, contrary to appearances, did not actually take place. In my opinion, nothing of what Mary has written would necessitate a different conclusion.
Dear Anthony,
I think if you look a tad more closely, Diane’s point is that the Catholic approach is ever so much better than the Orthodox approach and I, on very pragmatic grounds, asserted and continue to assert that it is six of one and half-dozen of the other.
In both cases, the second time around for Catholics, whatever you’d like to call it makes no difference to me, is very often treated as a penitential situation in any event, because we have learned that the decrees of nullity very often delude one or both parties involved in the non-marriage decision….And third marriages, very often referred to as third marriages even after TWO decrees of nullity, are treated with even more strong language and psychological therapy as well….prior to sacramental recognition…whatever that means any more.
M.
We all know how diligent you are about being right all the time
Mary, why should I take anything you say seriously, why should I even bother responding to you, after a gratuitous crack like that? Have I said anything like that to you?? Or to Och? Or to anyone else here?
This stuff just gets so old.
Right. My last response to you was based entirely on my compulsive need to be right all the time. It had nothing to do with my concern to safeguard the integrity of Catholic Church Teaching. Whatever.
Yes, praxis is messy, and abuses abound. So what else is new? If abuses of Church Teaching somehow invalidated Church Teaching, then not only Catholicism but Christianity itself wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Jesus commanded, "Love one another as I have loved you." How many Christians actually do that? How many Christians have ever done it? As Chesterton famously said, "Christianity hasn't failed; it has never been tried." That argument sounds compelling to us Christians, yet it carries little weight with the countless unbelievers who see the p—s-poor witness we Christians give and conclude therefrom that our religion is a sham.
"Let God be true and every man a liar." Church Teaching is true even if no one follows it. But woe to us who do not follow it; we are scandalizing the world.
I do not justify Catholic abuses of the annulment process, nor do I see them as legitimate "praxis." They are abuses, and thankfully the Church is now cracking down on them. But, by the same token, I can not see how anyone can justify the Orthodox tolerance of serial monogamy — which is enshrined in Orthodox Teaching, not just in praxis. I'm sorry, but I just can't envision a reunion in which the Catholic Church will capitulate on the issue of the indissolubility of valid sacramental marriage. I cannot see Catholicism officially tolerating up to three divorces / remarriages for up to 20 reasons. Maybe you can see such a thing. Well, all I can say is, I hope I never live to see that day. For me, it would call into question not only the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church but the trustworthiness of Christ Himself — for HE is the One who forbade divorce / remarriage.
I trust in the Lord's promise that the Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter will withstand all the onslaughts of the Gates of Hell, even unto the Eschaton. And I trust in Jesus Himself — that His Word is true and trustworthy. If you interpret this as meaning that I "need to be right," well, there's nothing much I can do about that, is there?
I am a child of divorce. The Book of Malachi says, "God hates divorce." I'm with God on this one. If that's not OK in your or anyone else's book, then, in the immortal words of Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls:
Sue me,
Sue me,
Shoot bullets through me….
God bless and have a great weekend!
Diane
Re “ever so much better”: Have you become a mind-reader now?
And re “six of one, half dozen of the other”: If you cannot tell the difference between Church Teaching A and completely different Church Teaching B, then what can I say? “Pragmatic grounds” do not invalidate Catholic Church Teaching (although abuses and violations of Church Teaching certainly cause grave scandal). Again, if faulty praxis invalidated doctrine, then there goes Christianity itself, right out the window. In ALL traditions, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, there have been countless evil Christians dishonoring the Name of Christ. Should we conclude from this that scandalous sins committed by Christians are just A-OK or that they can be justified as the norm and enshrined in dogma? I think not.
Yes, I am arguing that, when it comes to the indissolubility of marriage, the Catholics have got it right. So (in my best Nathan Detroit voice): Sue me. Our Orthodox brethren constantly remind us of all the things we’ve supposedly got wrong — from liturgical abuses (valid charge) to the Filioque (not valid) to beardless priests (donnez-moi un breacque). So, I’m countering that Catholics have got ONE thing right — and you interpret this as runaway triumphalism? Good grief.
One wonders why you were strangely silent when Lucian and Panagiotos (sp?) were telling us Catholics how Utterly Wrong About Everything we were and how much we needed to just repent and get with the Orthodox program. Apparently that’s not overweening triumphalism … but suggesting that Catholics might have got the indissolubility-of-marriage thing right is.
Whatever.
If you feel comfortable defending and justifying multiple divorces and remarriages, good luck to you, my friend. Anyone who has ever lived through his / her parents’ divorce may conceivably have a different perspective. Just sayin’.
And now, for the good of my soul and in the interests of Christian charity, I am (at least temporarily) outta here.
God bless, y’all! Have a glass of wine and listen to some good music. It’s the weekend…let’s chill!
You must be joking Diane. Two annulments are hardly a rarity in the Catholic Church.
And I rarely take seriously any of the nasty things you have to say about Orthodoxy and eastern Catholics.
You are pretty predictable after all these years.
M.
Let’s everyone take a deep breath and step away from this one, shall we?
This is getting a little too bitter and personal for a site dedicated to ecumenical reflection
We are not in communion yet, so I don’t see what grounds Orthodox might have to complain at this stage that only first marriages are recognized by Rome as sacramental.
If Mary wants to consider post annulment Catholic marriages “penitential,” so be it. It doesn’t affect Catholic matrimonial theology one way or another.
Dear Michael,
It is not Mary who sees them as penitential. That comes from the praxis necessitated by the fiction of annulment and is expressed in terms of an older and wiser time in the Church with respect to marriage and human frailty.
I am only an observer and a messenger.
M.
“We all know how diligent you are about being right all the time …”
“You are pretty predictable after all these years.”
Mary, I greatly value your contributions. But please keep the personal stuff out of it.
I understand and agree.
Then I ask you, as an eastern Catholic, please moderate Diane’s nasty and spiteful side. I have stayed out of the Catholic-Orthodox blogosphere precisely because I was sickened by Diane’s nasty mouth over the years.
So if you really do value my contributions then please get Diane to control herself, or I will simply disappear again. Nobody needs what she dishes out and I am disappointed to find it here.
M.
Mary,
It seems that you and Diane have a history that I’m not aware of. And so I am asking both of you to lay off each other. I will not tolerate any more ad hominems here: I don’t care where they come from.
Mary:
I think if you look a tad more closely, Diane’s point is that the Catholic approach is ever so much better than the Orthodox approach and I, on very pragmatic grounds, asserted and continue to assert that it is six of one and half-dozen of the other.
If the Catholic Church’s official teaching is that only one sacramental marriage is possible (unless of course the spouse dies), but its praxis suggests a different sacramental theology, then one or the other has to go. Obviously you have made your choice.
But given the well known fact that the vast majority of annulments (78%) in the Catholic Church are granted in the U.S. (6% of the world’s Catholics), I think a good case can be made that the problem is one of distorted praxis in one geographical region, not a theological meltdown. May I suggest that your personal experience, valuable as it is, has perhaps deprived you of some needed perspective on this subject.
Mary,
You can’t seriously be agreeing that the discussion is getting too personal and yet in the same posting claim to be “sickened by Diane’s nasty mouth” and ask our host to “get Diane to control herself.” I don’t know you from Eve, but if this strikes you as reasonable discourse, then perhaps a period of self-imposed silence and reflection might be in order.
I have enough perspective to know that much of Catholic teaching is ignored in much of Europe and South America, so that the idea that Americans are the ones bothering to have first marriages annulled should not come a great surprise.
Africa has its own set of cultural practices and traditions that influence statistics as does the Pacific Rim and other Catholic Asian areas.
M.
I’ve been watching Diane bash eastern Catholics for years Mike, so you’ll pardon me if I say that I don’t much like it. I don’t like her attitude toward Orthodox either.
So please be as generous with me as an eastern Catholic as you are with Diane.
M.
Mary,
Whatever persona we might adopt elsewhere, let’s try to be gentle here. We are on this site at our host’s indulgence to exchange views and inform each other. This sometimes requires that we be prepared to suck up unpleasant observations, so long as they are not personal or ad hominem.
So getting back to your substantial point (which I trust is not any perceived grievance on your part regarding Diane):
Can you document your assertion that post annulment Catholic marriages are officially described anywhere as penitential? This is a claim I have not heard before.
Dear Michael,
Please go back and read all that I have written here. You have presumed that I asserted something that I have not asserted at all.
M.
Mary,
“Many of the good pastors in the Catholic Churches where I live excel in marriage preparation. I do not know one of them who, in preparing couples who are intending to enter into a second marriage, do not stress the penitential nature of the planned union.”
If this is all you have, then the name of the city and parish would suffice. I could then e-mail the diocese and seek clarification. Someone who has secured an annulment and remarried has not contracted sin in so doing, so I have difficulty understanding how penance would fit it.
Still, it wouldn’t be the first time some church official took it upon himself to do something questionable. It could also be that we simply have different understandings of what the term “penitential” implies.
Irenaeus,
Thanks for reviving a discussion on this topic. Though, as Fr. Gregory noted, the divergence in teaching and praxis on marriage, has never been a real source of division between East and West—as I understand, the Florentine fathers agreed to leave the subject alone—, I think the divergence in pastoral responses to problematic marriages on each side does in fact reveal a rather telling difference.
In the West, the Church, with the help of the couple, examines the situation prior to—or, if you prefer, at the time of—the marriage itself to see if there are, as is often said, deficiencies in form and/or matter. The weight of the decision, whether for or against a decree of nullity, is entirely placed there, i.e. before or at the time of marriage.
Even when I was an Eastern Catholic, this seemed to me to be problematic in several ways.
First, this response assumes that, after the relationship has reached a disastrous point, each spouse or both spouses is/are somehow capable of recalling their psychological and spiritual states leading up to marriage—all without significant interference or distortion from their subsequent experience (which, presumably, has at least wounded them in some way, or else they wouldn’t be seeking nan annulment). The heart is deceitful, as Scripture says, and, in such situations, how can any tribunal make such a life-altering decision based on the report of the separated spouses or other human witnesses?
Second, it seems to me that a marriage sometimes (or perhaps often, I don’t know) breaks down because of what happens after the wedding day. Though these causes might’ve been present in seed form before marriage, the reasons for separation/divorce usually come into serious play after the couple has attempted this life together. The Western pastoral process, I think, distracts the couple from looking at the actual breakdown of the marriage itself. All the attention is focused on what happened before it, or leading up to it. What of the sins that were committed after the “moment” of the sacrament? Does this not obscure the path to repentance for the couple, or even make repentance itself harder?
Finally, I think the Western pastoral praxis places burdens on the Church which she was never meant to carry—that of reading the human heart and of subsequently issuing a decision which is in fact known to God and God alone. As a consequence of this, a disproportionately small portion of her energy is spent on helping people in “irregular marriages” experience God in the present.
A friend of mine who was Christian but not Catholic never gave a hoot about the Church until about 10 years after her divorce and subsequent remarriage. She and her ex-husband had gotten married in a Catholic Church, and when she sought an annulment some 5 years into her second marriage, it was denied. It left her and her second husband in a pastoral lurch of sorts, since they had lived as husband and wife for some 5 years. To begin with, she sought the decree of annulment at that time precisely because, after all those years of struggling with God, the Church had finally become a community in which she found the grace and love of God. Had she and her second husband not cared to reconnect with the Catholic Church and just remained Presbyterian, they wouldn’t have bothered. Ironic, is it not, that the most important advice their pastor could give in that situation was to ask her and her second husband to stop living as a married couple—after 5 years of what looked like a fresh start for them both?
I simply think that the Eastern approach is a more honest one. It goes something like this: “Yes, you screwed up big time—perhaps before you got married, perhaps after, we don’t know—, but if you repent (or since you have repented), God can help you begin again.” Of course this is liable to abuse—some people were, I understand, already trying to sneak in third marriages at the time of St. Basil. But grace always risks this abuse, and salvation history suggests that it is a risk God is more than willing to take with us.
Respectfully,
W.H.
If you think the Eastern approach is “a more honest one”, how do you square the inconsistency of an “indissoluble marriage” with praxis that plainly treats marriage as “soluble?”
It’s not honesty that is at issue here (except insofar as the provisions of canon law might be treated abusively), but rigour. Whatever your personal preferences (and you have made these clear) it is incontestable that Latin canon law is more rigorous in the matter than that followed in Orthodoxy. We need not go further then this and ascribe mendacity to either party.
Michaël,
As far as I understand, the East does not regard the first marriage as “dissolved”. A second marriage is just that—a second marriage.
I don’t see how rigor is the issue at hand. If it were, then I suppose the Church with the more rigorous canons wins out. The problem here is not a matter of how great our ideals are but rather what we do when a marriage breaks down.
I did not intend to ascribe mendacity to the West. I only think that the Eastern approach takes the problem on more directly.
W.H.
I agree with W.H.; Orthodoxy factors in real life and people literally getting blind-sided by it. When you’re on the Titanic, you don’t even imagine the possibility of an iceberg.
May the marriage of those who disagree prosper. Seriously.
This so-called “Tradition” of the east in allowing divorce and re-marriage is about the very worst example of easterners claiming everything they do is Traditional when it is clearly a later innovation.
It was ever the practice of the East to disapprove of second marriages and condemn those who undertook them before the 9th century. Before that point the second marriage was merely civil (and lead to excommunication for 3 years or more, though admitting unrepentant bigamists to communion even after such a period of abstinence seems appalling to me as they are still clearly not in a state of grace).
The Greek Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage in Byzantium and put the whole system under the governorship of the Church. Thus the Greek Church developed rites for second and third marriages.
The Fathers never say that a second marriage is not sacramental because, for them, it was entirely self-evident. Prior to the tenth century, there was no such thing as a “Rite of Second Marriage”. And if, as some say, this ok because the second marriage is “not sacramental” then that is even worse. What is a “non-sacramental marriage”? Some sort of adulterous co-habitation blessed by the Church?
The subservience of the Eastern Church to the secular state has long been a subject for Roman polemics and this has always been their most devastating example.
The West has abandoned ancient rigor and mutilated Tradition often enough but do not think that such things did not happen amongst the Greeks.
I need not even mention the issue of contraception…
This is an interesting exchange for me to read.
I am a former Catholic who, formally, defected from the Catholic Church over this very subject.
I, successfully, defended our valid Sacrament against the American Tribunal System. After twelve years in the courts of the Catholic Church the second of two decisions reached in the Roman Rota upheld the validity of our marriage, rather in legal terms declined that nullity had been “proven”.
Therein lies the “problem”. You see, from the moment the Catholic priest in Iowa told my wife that she “deserved” an annulment, the “real” presumption has been AGAINST validity in PRACTICE but FOR VALIDITY in THEORY. But that theory exists only on paper for the vast majority of Catholics, especially among the clergy.
To this day, now just shy of twenty years from when my wife, functionally, abandoned our marriage for another lover she has found CONSTANT SUPPORT for her adulterous relationship among Catholics, especially the clergy, including bishops, although, NOT A SINGLE SOUL WILL ADMIT SO “ON CAMERA”.
For sisteen years I sought the help of the clergy, priests, bishops and cardinals to work to act to heal a marriage that is valid. But NEVER had a FINGER raised to do a thing, other than totally accept the LOVERS AS A COUPLE, HUSBAND AND WIFE in ALL BUT A CATHOLIC WEDDING CEREMONY.
So, broken-hearted, I left the Catholic Church, quite literally, walking away from the pastor to whom I handed my formal written request, in tears.
My opinion is that the Eastern Church(little c catholic) promotes ADULTERY in its practices and that the Western Church(big C catholic) promotes ADULTERY. They have differing methods though.
The East appears to NOT engage in the legal obfuscations that the West does, but both are glass houses and neither “Emperor” has clothes.
I pray that these two Apostolic Churches refrain from any serious discussions of “unity” until they, accept the will of Christ that marriage is for life and BOTH ABANDON THEIR POSITIONS.
I love the Catholic Church and have deep respect for the Orthodox Churches, due to its/their (I am not a theologian and mean no disrespect here) apostolic continuity.
But, I wait/pray for the Catholic Church to see its errors and for its sister Orthodox to do the same.
Unjust divorce should result in formal separation from the body of the Church, period.
I, as the abandoned spouse, have no desire, worthy of Christ, other than to wait for our marriage to heal. He has not been unfaithful to His Bride, this disintegrated Church,
which has been ADULTEROUS towards HIM in its attitudeS towards marriage.
IT IS WRONG TO “MOVE ON’ BECAUSE ONE HAS BEEN ABANDONED! CHRIST WAS ABANDONED BY HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS/APOSTLES, YET HE ACCEPTED HIS CROSS.
It is time for those who succeeded those who abandoned Him to ATONE for that sin, ending this divorce among themselves, AFTER they restore marriage to indissolubility that is SUPPORTED BY THE LIVING BODY OF CHRIST.
Any “union” among these “divorced” apostolic successors is doomed to fail, one way or another, unless marriage is restored to be THE reflection of the Trinity that IT IS.
As divisions in the family are “accepted” and not addressed(as they ARE NOT PRESENTLY) so will the Church be left to its own sinfulness with “divisions”.
If the highest of the apostolic successors cannot see this truth, they do not have the “wisdom” to see Christ clearly enough to follow him in the tempest that buffets them.
Orthodoxy factors in real life
Yes, and in Real Life people also get blind-sided by passionate infatuations that lead them to commit fornication or adultery. Does that mean we should start allowing fornication and adultery, too?
For the umpteenth time: Do Our Lord’s words count for nothing? All we seem to be talking about is, “Well, the Greeks do this, and the Slavs do that, and the ‘Romans’ do the other, and the Eastern praxis is more pastoral and charitable because it factors in Real Life and hard cases,” and so on and so forth.
If this were NOT a subject on which Jesus Christ had spoken forcefully, then fine, we could justify any praxis we wanted. But it is a subject on which Jesus Christ has spoken forcefully…so maybe, just maybe, we should check out what He said about it.
And zsc, I am truly sorry you had a bad experience. I am blessed with a very happy marriage, but I am certainly familiar with unhappy ones, especially my parents’. Have you pursued the possibility of annulment? If there was an impediment to the validity of the marriage to begin with — defect of form, disparity of cult, etc. — then you may be able to receive a decree of nullity. (Assuming you are, or were, Catholic.)
Diane
Christian,
Thank you for bringing concrete historical situations into the discussion. I should begin by noting that the claim that everything we Easterners do is Tradition can only be held tenaciously by the most naive (and stubborn?) among us.
It does not seem accurate to say that the East condemned those who undertook second marriages before the 9th century, since St. Basil already had refers to canonical practices with regard to second marriages (and, indeed, third marriages) in his letter to Amphilochius (188).
A part of your argument hinges on your statement that “[t]he Fathers never say that a second marriage is not sacramental because, for them, it was entirely self-evident.” This is an argument from silence, so it is not a very strong one per se. I’m not aware of clear delineations between a civil marriage and a sacramental one among the Fathers, but could you provide some instances in which they did so?
To argue that second marriages were condemned in the Greek Church prior to the 10th century because there were no rites for these until that time (assuming that this is historically indubitable), is an argument that does not follow. All this suggests is that the Greek Church did not have a separate rite for second marriages. It doesn’t necessarily mean that second marriages were condemned. That would be tantamount to saying that Christians did not use Eucharistic anaphorae until the 2nd century because our earliest documented anaphora comes from that period. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, St. Basil already seemed familiar with such situations in the 4th century.
*****
Diane,
I think that neither Christians in the East nor the West can be escape the accusation that they seem to have watered down the commandment given by Christ with regard to marriage. True, the Eastern approach can seem to bulldoze through texts like Matthew 5.32 and Mark 10.11-12. The Western concept of an annulment, however, often boils down to an exercise in loophole-finding. Such is my blunt view of both traditions.
Neither East nor West, I think, wants to compromise or do away with the commandment concerning marriage given to us by Christ. What they each attempt to reckon with is the fact of broken marriages among those who want to follow Christ. That the solutions arrived at by each is imperfect need not surprise us. Why should imperfections have perfect solutions?
On an exegetical note, in Matthew 5.32, there is one condition, it seems, under which Jesus allowed for divorce and remarriage: that of porneia (often rendered “sexual immorality” or “unchastity”). The debates among exegetes as to what porneia means in this context is of course inconclusive (as are so many other debates). Still, this text shows that Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage was not a blanket one.
Shalom,
W.H.
Dear Wei,
I believe you have come very close to heart of the problem and in doing so are that much closer to the heart of a solution.
If it were mine to do I would review Father John Meyendorff’s history of the sacrament of matrimony in the east and hope to see both east and west elect a discipline that allows for human frailty and still upholds the singularity of the sacrament of matrimony.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful responses.
M.
I just started the article and found a big problem. 75% of the time in the US, it is the female abandoning the marriage. Source: “Taken Into Custody” and others.
“If it were mine to do I would review Father John Meyendorff’s history of the sacrament of matrimony in the east and hope to see both east and west elect a discipline that allows for human frailty and still upholds the singularity of the sacrament of matrimony.”
Two synonyms for this are:
ADULTERY
FALSE CHARITY
The ONLY solution is to counsel those who have decided to “leave” their unions that to do so will result in their separation from the living Body of Christ, even in the case of an “innocent spouse” who has even “dated”. Then the Church must enforce it and cease allowing such a person even entry into a Church, unless it is AFTER repentance and a commitment to seriously attempt reconciliation.
This is the ONLY way to safe guard marriage.
A person such as myself will NEVER accept another solution, unless their is one proposed which does the same thing, effectively, without any compromise.
I will take my chances at judgment day being as faithful as possible to the vows I spoke, even if it means a separation from an unfaithful, adulterous Church.
I am certain that any other proposals are at odds with the fidelity and respect required for marriage, regardless of how “pastoral” they seem.
diane,
The word of God counts for everything. We receive the fearful words of the Lord, then we come to the Church to work it out. She meets us at our weakness and reminds us that even ‘you’ (especially ‘you’ – meaning me), can still be saved despite the brokenness of the human condition. W.H. said this with more clarity than I can manage, but I think you get the point.
In my case, this isn’t me going “East good, West bad”– to me Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.
As for your personal question: It’s nothing like that, but bad marriages seem to run in the family, so it makes me look at the concept of marriage in a different lens (than most people my age anyway). Thanks for caring though.
At the risk of adding fuel to a fire, I think that those who are critical of the Eastern tradition of allowing for a second, and even a third, marriage after divorce are missing a key element of Archbishop Zoghby’s argument. For all that it is different from the Latin practice, the practice he outlines is a legitimate practice within the Catholic Church.
Arguments about the plain meaning of Jesus words in the Gospel, or the historical development of the canonical tradition on marriage in the Greek speaking Church are interesting but secondary. The argument being advanced is that re-marriage for the innocent party in sacramental marriage that ends in divorces is a legitimate option with the (Easter) Catholic Church.
Reading through the comments it is clear that some who have responded do not think this should be allowed. But if Archbishop Zoghby is accurate in his description of the practice in at least the Melkite Greek Catholic Church those who disagree with the practice would be wrong in their exclusive identification of the Catholic practice with the practice of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.
We can of course have another discussion about pastoral prudence and/or the abuse of process in each tradition. While I think that is an interesting topic in its own right (or is it rite?), Though there is more than enough abuse to go around, it does not negate what seems to me to be Archbishop Zoghby’s argument that BOTH the Latin and Byzantine canonical and pastoral tradition in response to divorce and re-marriage are of equal legitimacy.
Finally, I am open to correction here, but to the best of my knowledge, those Orthodox Churches who joined themselves to Rome were not required to give up the Orthodox practice of allowing re-marriage after divorce. Nor were they required to adopt (though evidently many have) the Latin practice of annulment (which by the way exists as well in the East). Nor am I aware of any contemporary or historical ecumenical discussions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that suggests the practice of either Church is illegitimate and/or an obstacle to reconciliation. Again, please, correct me if I’m in error here but I don’t think I am. Rome may not like it, but they do not reject as an illegitimate the Orthodox acceptance of allowing for a second or even third marriage for the innocent party after divorce.
In Christ,
+FrG
Fr. Gregory,
Insofar as I can ascertain matters, “subsequent” marriages appear to be a theoretical possibility for Eastern Catholic Churches, but one for which there is no longer any explicit provision in canon law. Instead, the Eastern Churches seem to have gravitated towards an annulment process similar to that in the Latin rite. Thi is only my impression, however, having perused the Code and discussions on various message boards.
Thank you Michaël.
In Christ,
+FrG
“Christian“,
uhm… You’re wrong. (I won’t accuse You of something else)
Canon IV Of Our Holy Father Basil The Great,
Archbishop Of Cæsarea In Cappadocia.
They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance.
Canon L Of Our Holy Father Basil The Great,
Archbishop Of Cæsarea In Cappadocia.
We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague fornication.
This has always been the Tradition in the East (& Orient): limiting the number of marriages at three. The West took another approach, which I find to be in the same spirit, though the method implemented differs (but the main idea is the same in both cases: to avoid serial polygamy).
—————
Oh, and Karl:
quit suffering for a whore: if it would’ve been simply a case of *unrequited love* coming from a woman worth Your time, then yes!, -by all means-, suffer all You want; but in this case I think it’s a complete *SIN* to waste Your life away like that for someone clearly *SO* not worth it. (If my comment upset You then so be it: I won’t apologize for it; actually, I think *I* will be the one taking offense at *You* if You DO feel offended — ok?). :-|
There, I said my piece: if Irenaeus will ban me for this (like the Pope did to the guy in my avatar), then so be it: it’s for a good cause, and I have no regrets. :-|
those Orthodox Churches who joined themselves to Rome were not required to give up the Orthodox practice of allowing re-marriage after divorce.
Father, that is news to me. I have a Greek Catholic friend from one of those churches, and he has never indicated that second and third marriages are allowed in his tradition. Quite the contrary.
Father, you speak somewhat dismissively about citations of Our Lord’s actual words. I find this rather disturbing.
In fact, I find all the comments here arguing in favor of the Orthodox divorce/remarriage tradition absolutely surreal. I can hardly believe my eyes sometimes when I scan some of them.
I wish some other Catholics more knowledgeable and articulate than I could weigh in here in defense of the de fide Catholic doctrine of the absolute indissolubility of sacramental marriage. (De fide as in: applying to all Catholics everywhere, no matter their geographic provenance or particular church/rite.)
Diane et al.,
There will never be a more intelligent person here to agree with you, primarily because you are wrong.
The eastern Catholic Churches are free canonically to follow their ancient traditions and are not bound by the Roman annulment process in terms of a second marriage. The fact that many latinized priests insist does not represent the formal teaching, and is not imposed by many priests who have not been raised up in the Latin rite.
Grace may be applied in the east to a second marriage and it has always been so.
These rules that define and effect marriage are disciplines Diane, not theological doctrines. The eastern Church blesses a second marriage. My only wish is that they would return to the truly penitential practices, rather than treating them as though they are all the same, de facto.
The Church does not need the sacraments to bless a vocation in the east or in the west. That is more evident in eastern monasticism and second marriages, and with women’s vocations in the west.
If the second marriage is blessed by the Church then it may be elevated above its profane and ordinarily sinful character.
You need to do a little more work on this topic and not quite so much talking.
M.
My Catholic Friends,
I am not, contrary to Diane’s charge dismissive of our Lord’s words, I am, however, critical of the argument some of you are make based on Christ’s words.
As for my argument in favor of divorce and re-marriage, it is not *my* argument–it is the tradition of the Eastern Churches, Orthodox and Catholic. Again, you may not like the tradition and your Greek Catholic friend may not have heard of the tradition, but a Catholic archbishop testifies that it is not simply an Orthodox practice but also the practice of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
For the record, the Byzantine canonical tradition does not deny what Diane terms “the absolute indissolubility of sacramental marriage.” What it does is make a concession for human weakness and allow those in a second marriage to approach the chalice. The service for a second marriage is penitential in character and does not (in my reading) suggest this second union is a sacramental bond.
For example, in the service the priest offers this prayer:
Lord Jesus Christ, who were lifted up on the precious and life-giving Cross, tore up the record against us and delivered us from the dominion of the devil, be merciful to the iniquities of your servants, because they, unable to bear the heat and burden of the day and the burning fever of the flesh, are now entering together the communion of a second marriage, as you made it lawful through the Apostle Paul, your vessel of election, saying for the sake of us in our lowliness, ‘It is better to marry in the Lord, than to burn’. As you are good and love mankind, have mercy, pardon, show pity, remit, forgive our debts, for you took our sicknesses on your own shoulders, for no one is sinless or without stain, not even were their life but one day, but you alone, who wore flesh without sin and granted us eternal dispassion.
For you are God, God of those who repent, and to you we give glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages.
Again you are free to disagree. You are not, without more evidence to the contrary, to reject this as a legitimate practice of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church in the response to the clear testimony of Archbishop Zoghby.
Finally, it is clear that most of those arguing against the Orthodox and Greek Catholic practice do so based on an ignorance of the facts. No one has offered any evidence that the Latin Church has rejected the Eastern practice (Orthodox and Catholic) or sees this practice as an impediment to full communion.
In Christ,
+FrG
I think that neither Christians in the East nor the West can be escape the accusation that they seem to have watered down the commandment given by Christ with regard to marriage.
Again, though, W-H, you fail to make some rather crucial distinctions here.
Orthodox Doxis: Divorce and remarriage OK (up to two remarriages)
Orthodox Praxis: Divorce and remarriage OK (up to two remarriages)
Catholic Doxis: Valid sacramental marriage is absolutely indissoluble. While civil divorce may be permissible in extreme cases (e.g., spousal abuse which threatens the lives of spouse and/or children), remarriage is never permissible unless one of the spouses dies
Catholic Praxis: Abuses of the annulment process sometimes amount to “Catholic Divorce”
In the Catholic case, the Teaching is clear and unequivocal, and it totally honors Our Lord’s command. BIG huge fat difference. That’s the elephant in the living room, and I don’t think it should be either ignored, glossed over, or minimized.
Abuses do not nullify or invalidate this clear and unequivocal teaching. If they did, as I said before, not only Catholicism but Christianity itself could not stand, because there have been abuses of Christian Teaching right from the get-go.
Now, it is possible to rein in abuses. Martin Luther famously railed against the sale of indulgences. Well, obviously that particular abuse was curbed: Have you noticed anyone selling indulgences lately? ;)
Similarly, abuses of the annulment process are being dealt with now. I deeply regret Karl’s experience…but please notice that he WAS vindicated by the Roman Rota. In fact, from what I’m told, virtually ever annulment appealed to the Roman Rota gets overturned. This in itself gives the lie to the claim that the Catholic and Orthodox praxes are equivalent, “six of one, half dozen of the other.”
Today at Mass, a couple who were recently denied an annulment sat right in front of us. They did not go up to receive Communion. I felt really bad for them, but I also respected and honored their obedience.
Their case, like so many others I know of, also gives the lie to the claim that the Catholic and Orthodox praxes are equivalent. Do you think this couple would have been denied Communion had they been Orthodox? No, neither do I. That = difference in praxis, in conformity with Catholic Teaching. And with the current crackdown on abuses of the annulment process, we are seeing this more and more.
IOW: It’s possible to get the horse back into the barn when you are dealing simply with abuses of correct Teaching. But, when both the praxis AND the Teaching are faulty, it’s a heck of a lot harder.
True, the Eastern approach can seem to bulldoze through texts like Matthew 5.32 and Mark 10.11-12.
No “seeming” about it, IMHO.
The Western concept of an annulment, however, often boils down to an exercise in loophole-finding.
Well, tell that to the couple who sat in front of us at Mass today. ;) In any event, there is nothing wrong with the Western “concept of an annulment.” The problem comes with abuses of the annulment process — IOW, where the praxis violates the doxis. Those abuses have been scandalous, but they are being cracked down on now.
God bless,
Diane
Diane,
You write today about a couple denied an annulment who were not able to receive Holy Communion. You then ask “Do you think this couple would have been denied Communion had they been Orthodox?” And answer that they would not have been denied Holy Communion if they were Orthodox. Assuming I have understood you correctly, may I ask how you have come to this conclusion?
In Christ,
+FrG
I would ask the moderator to ask the Latin Catholics in this thread not to condemn the eastern practice. There are no recent records of there being any resistance to the practice on the part of anyone from the Vatican. In fact one of the most well developed areas in east-west relations for accords is the sacrament of matrimony.
It is a difficult issue, as was the tradition of married priests, for many in the Roman rite to accept but as we come closer to renewed communion, the Roman rite faithful are going to need to accept other practices as valid and grace-filled.
So to just rail and be dismissive against eastern practices is really no better that the personal attacks that you asked me to stop here. There is actually more truth-value in the personal assessments to date in this dicussion.
You do no service to renewed communion by allowing the assertion of a “truth” that is not “true” and one that is delivered in the spirit that it is being delivered here.
M.
Let me please second Mary Lanser’s observation.
The criticisms of the Eastern practice are based simply on personal opinion–no evidence has been offered that the Catholic Church rejects the Eastern practice and, indeed, the original post argues that the Orthodox practice is also a legitimate [Eastern] Catholic practice.
In Christ,
+FrG
Thank you Father Gregory,
And since we have not spoken for a long while, I beg your pardon for any old wounds, slights or sins against you.
M.
God forgives, can I do less? Forgive me please for my offenses against you.
“Resentment is just beating yourself up with someone else’s sin.”
Metropolitan Jonah, OCA
This topic is very hurtful for me as it goes to the heart of my faith(if indeed I do retain any other than through inertia), and of what love means(as I understand it).
LOVE IS THE CROSS.
FAITH IS ACCEPTING THE CROSS.
These questions are those which separate me from all that is legitimately Christian in its inheritance from the Apostles.
I disagree with both traditions and can stand with neither. But, it is for God to decide what happens to those on either side and those like me who are simply, outside.
Culturally, I am a Latin Catholic, who was raised in America.
I had a Greek Orthodox priest ask me to answer his question which was, “Are you catholic(specifically with the small c) or American first?” Before he posed this question he pointedly asked me to not take time to “think about it”, but rather to answer it immediately.
My answer to him was that I am catholic first and that it was “no contest”.
He asked me to stand, he embraced me after he stood and he told me that, indeed, I am his brother. he indicated that by far, most whom he had asked were not so quick, or sure and that many, simply had to think about it.
This priest is in line to be a bishop one day as he remains in the celibate line.
Now, I have no home and I see no resolution, particularly if, as some of you allude to, the “unity” which seems to have gained some momentum among the Eastern and Western sister Churches, becomes reality.
I will be a complete orphan.
Perhaps I will say more, if I think it would serve any good purpose, but for now, it is nearing bedtime.
Forgive me if I babbled for too long and irrelevantly.
the original post argues that the Orthodox practice is also a legitimate [Eastern] Catholic practice.
I agree, Father. The original post does indeed argue this. But I think it is worth pointing out two things:
1. Archbishop Zoghby is not the Catholic Magisterium. Any more than Cardinal Mahony is (thank God!!). Or any other individual bishop. The entire College of Bishops in communion with the Pope comprise the Magisterium. But not any individual bishop by himself.
2. While he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, acting in his official capacity on behalf of the Vatican, Pope Benedict saw fit to reject some of Archbishop Zoghby’s ideas and proposals. The good archbishop, IOW, was at odds with the Vatican and with the Magisterium on these issues. Quite frankly, he went too far. I’m sure his heart was in the right place, but he went too far.
As for Catholic Teaching on the matter: The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is just that: the Catechism of the universal Catholic Church, East and West. It applies across the board — not just to the Latin Church. And the current Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it crystal-clear that valid sacramental marriage is absolutely indissoluble. Period.
There is no “double truth” — one for the East, one for the West. “What God has joined together let NO MAN put asunder” has the same force and meaning no matter where we on the planet we happen to live and no matter what our cultural background.
God bless,
Diane
Diane,
with all due respect,
(1) You’ve asked for patristical evidence for (or approval of) the Eastern way of handling divorce, and I already offered it to You thrice: two times on the other thread, and once here on this one (and from Saint Basil the Great, no less).
(2) The Catholic version isn’t exactly super-biblical either, since Christ lists whoredom as the ONLY reason for divorce, whereas the Catholic Church is much more understanding (e.g., if one of the spouses was basically young and stupid, so to say, and entered into matrimony with the wrong set of ideas). — You Yourself offered such an example above from Your personal life, regarding Your brother-in-law.
Assuming I have understood you correctly, may I ask how you have come to this conclusion?
Correct me if I am wrong, Father, but I was assuming that they could have had their marriage blessed as a second “penitential” marriage. I mean, if they’d been Orthodox. I should have made that clear. I am not arguing that Catholic couples can have their second marriages blessed in the Orthodox Church. I know that they can’t, of course. Presumably they would first have to become Orthodox. But, if they did so, then they could have their second marriage blessed…at least that is what I am assuming. I have actually known of such cases, so it does not strike me as wildly improbable.
Both parties were divorced from their first spouses. They are good people, good Christians, and they presumably would make good Orthodox. ;)
primarily because you are wrong
May I ask you, with all sincerity, to substantiate this rather than simply asserting it?
Thank you!
To Diane I must say, from my own experience and from that of others. I cannot leave tonight with out addressing this.
The annulment abuse IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED.
My wife and her longtime lover. although they are, technically, forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church, are otherwise fully accepted in day to day life as “husband and wife” and THIS IS THE CAUSE OF MY SEPARATION FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Our marriage was destroyed, with the encouragement of many priests and bishops, through until this day. The Rotal decision is rendered meaningless in the face of Latin CAPITULATION to the “realities” of divorce.
I will NEVER accept such a falsehood. Do(TO ROME) not tell me our marriage persists and you look the other way from the adulterers who CONTINUE TO VIOLATE IT. I was there. I know our marriage persists without you telling me.
By the way, for the past 10 years it is the Byzantine Catholic Church which has supported my wife and her adulterous partner, with the full knowledge of her parish priest, his last two bishops and the Metropolitan in Pittsburgh. Consequently, I am NOT A FAN of Byzantine Catholics.
I was told by an Orthodox priest, in the early 90’s, that, in his opinion my wife and her lover would eventually learn of the Byzantine rite and gravitate towards it. He was correct. By 2000 that is EXACTLY where they headed.
I had to literally threaten the bishop/eparch with canonical action in Rome before he would move to require the local pastor/priest to cease giving the Eucharist to my wife and her lover, at least in public. I have no way of knowing if they continue to receive the Eucharist without repentance and with the blessing of the local priest/bishop, in private.
BUT IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME.
The local priest/pastor knows the whole affair, although he will not address it with me, as I have tried, and apparently sees no problem with public and permanent adultery. He is bi-rite, I believe.
I became a stranger in the Church of my Baptism. To continue to call it home, with active support, was something I could not do any longer.
Karl,
do You want to go to Hell, together with your adulterous wife and her lover, and thus be joined to them for all eternity? If “no”, then don’t go to sleep in Your anger. He who says that he loves God, yet hates his neighbour, is a liar, because God is Love, and teaches us to love even our enemies and to pray even for those that wrong us or do us harm. If You’re in anger, You’re in Hell, and if death catches You in that state, there’s where You’ll be spending eternity. [Seriously, man, there’s no point being stuck with me in an oven for all eternity :-) ].
She’s NOT worth it! Start by trying not to think about it any longer. And after You’ve managed that, try to not hate her or them any longer. Yes, I KNOW it’s impossible. (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27; John 16:33).
“He who says that he loves God, yet hates his neighbour, is a liar, because God is Love, and teaches us to love even our enemies and to pray even for those that wrong us or do us harm.”
Amen.
To hold to account is not hate. Nor is anger necessarily hate. Both are aspects of God and HE IS LOVE.
If my anger were to be measured I would likely be MORE ANGRY with the Catholic Church than my wife or her lover.
Its job is to act to save ALL of our souls. Mine is to work towards her holiness and perfection in Christ, which the Catholic Church is STANDING DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO. meanwhile I cannot ignore the salvation of the lover’s soul as well, which ROME IS ENDANGERING.
I do not have to try NOT to be human, I HAVE TO TRY to put on Jesus Christ, as best a HUMAN can.
I am trying to do just that. Others have been and are far better at this than I, but I am trying.
Thank you and Good night.
Karl: You are very much in my prayers, my brother.
If your wife’s Byzantine parish lets her take Communion even after the Roman Rota has overturned her annulment, then this is a grave abuse indeed. If you cannot get a straight answer from the eparchy, can you possibly try the papal nuncio? Laypeople do have rights, and there are channels you can go through to secure yours. There is a website that specializes in laypeople’s rights — they helped us when our former parish priest was giving some of us a really hard time for kneeling during the Consecration. I will try to find the site for you.
God bless,
Diane
Lucian: I do not have time for a full reply now, but I would like to correct one thing you said:
When my brother-in-law obtained his annulment, this did NOT mean that the Catholic Church recognized his civil divorce / remarriage. A decree of nullity means that the first union was not a valid sacramental marriage to begin with. IOW: There was no marriage. Therefore, there could be no divorce. (The Church is not bound by the State’s understanding of what constitutes divorce.)
It may be that the annulment in this case was an abuse. It may be that it would have been overturned had it been appealed to the Roman Rota. I don’t know. I tend to think that the annulment was valid, because I know that neither my brother-in-law nor his fiancee was serious about marriage or about its permanence. They admitted this at the time of the wedding, in fact, when they both expressed reservations about the marriage. In fact, at that time, they indicated that they were at a sort of crossroads in their relationship where they were either going to marry or break up. It was if they were tossing a coin — heads, we marry; tails, we break up. This is not the kind of informed consent the Church requires for a valid sacramental marriage. It is more like an excuse to get a lot of wedding presents. ;)
Diane
One more thing and then I must run: I do believe the Church is now cracking down on abuses of the annulment process. It is certainly doing so in my diocese…I keep hearing of cases where annulments are denied. My deacon friend who works with the tribunal has even expressed surprise that some of the cases he was involved with were denied.
The Vatican has made very clear that it is cracking down on the rampant abuses of the annulment process (which abuses, BTW, are largely confined to the American Church, although I believe the Canadians and Brits run a pretty close second.)
I am very saddened that Karl’s wife’s eparchy is apparently NOT cracking down on abuses of the annulment process. I hope that is not reflective of Byzantine Catholicism here in America.
There has been much talk in these threads about how much more practical, realistic, and pastoral the Eastern praxis is. But, as Karl’s case makes clear, that “pastoral” stuff works both ways. For every couple eager to enter a second union with the Church’s blessing, there may be a deserted spouse out there who never wanted the first (valid sacramental) marriage to end in the first place. Blessing the second union as a valid sacramental marriage is a slap in the face to the agonized first spouse, the one who was deserted but who wants to remain faithful to his marital vows. Who is being “pastoral” to that person? Does he not even count? Is all our sympathy supposed to be reserved for the couple seeking the second union? This seems to be the practical result of the Orthodox doxis/praxis — and also the result of abuses of the Catholic doxis.
Such pastoral concern strikes me as selective indeed!
Dear Diane,
There are indeed two disciplines for east and west with respect to the sacrament of matrimony and divorce. And those two systems are reflected in the various accords between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.
So I suggest that you either present documentation that the west condemns the east for its practice, or you need to restrict your comments to that which you actually know something about and stop condemning things that not even your Church condemns.
M.
neither my brother-in-law nor his fiancee was serious about marriage or about its permanence. They admitted this at the time of the wedding, in fact, when they both expressed reservations about the marriage. In fact, at that time, they indicated that they were at a sort of crossroads in their relationship where they were either going to marry or break up. It was if they were tossing a coin — heads, we marry; tails, we break up. This is not the kind of informed consent the Church requires for a valid sacramental marriage. It is more like an excuse to get a lot of wedding presents.
And some people take Communion sloppy, and then they die. (1 Corinthians 11:30) — but that doesn’t annul the validity of the Host’s consecration (unless You’re a Calvinist)
Your brother-in-law and his wife were –unfortunately– married. In a Church. By a Priest. No-one was holding a gun to their heads. And they weren’t under the influence of alcohol or any mind-altering drugs either… And then they broke off! (BTW, the Bible doesn’t use super-technical, ultra-philosophical and easily-reinterpretable terms, devoid of any meaning: it simply says “puts her/him away” — and that’s precisely what happened in their case). And it was NOT because of adultery! (Thank Heavens!). So, they [together with the Church that allowed the annulment of their marriage and then even went as far as to dare pretend it never happened] also broke the clear words of the Saviour — duh! (and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out). We all fall short of the mark. The way to be readmitted is to admit you were wrong in the first place: like the publican, like the prodigal son; hardening the heart and saying there’s nothing to repent, `cause it never happened in the first place is just NOT the way to go… :-\ — So in this aspect I do like the Eastern approach better; but on the whole, I see them both as equivalent. (I repeat: the Eastern approach; not the “Orthodox” one; the Western one is also Orthodox, as far as I’m concerned).