Catholic and Orthodox views on marriage

[Monica4316]

Recently I’ve been thinking/researching a bit about the Catholic and Orthodox views on divorce and remarriage… and I’m a bit confused about something. I was hoping someone could help me out

When I read Christ’s words in the Gospel, I get the impression that He is saying that only unfaithfulness can truly destroy a marriage. Thus if a person remarries after their spouse was unfaithful to them, they are not committing adultery. However, He did not mention any other reason. The Orthodox Church however, grants divorce and remarriage for various reasons… doesn’t this mean that it allows remarriage while the first marriage is still in place, if no marital infidelity took place? I hope this question makes sense.

My second question is… for this reason, the Catholic view makes more sense to me, because it clarifies that a marriage can’t be simply “dissolved”, and so a person can’t remarry if the first marriage is still valid. However, it also teaches that an annulment means that a marriage* never occured*. I’m kind of confused about this too… I’ve heard some Orthodox say that it is an incorrect view because it means that the couple lived in sin, thinking they had a valid marriage. What would be the Catholic reply to this statement? Also, can we see annulments in the early Church; when did they start?

At this point, I don’t quite understand either the Orthodox or the Catholic view entirely… the Orthodox position makes no sense to me because it claims to dissolve marriage - when Christ said this is not possible except for unfaithfulness; and the Catholic position is also confusing for me for the reasons I stated.

Thank you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not Orthodox, but there is this thing in the East called oikonomia. Oikonomia is similar to dispensations or indults in the Western Church. Oikonomia is dispensing some rules so that a greater good may be achieved. In the case of granting a divorce, the Church would rather grant a divorce for someone rather than have them live for the rest of their life an adulterer. Of course some will argue that the rules on marriage is absolute and cannot be dispensed.

 

[Aramis]

An annulment doesn’t say “No marriage happened” but instead, “the ceremony did not confer the sacramental nature of Christian marriage.”

It was a civil marriage, and it was a marriage presumed valid until it was examined.

Its a finding that the Celebration of marriage shouldn’t have been celebrated, because what the church intends of marriage wasn’t what was intended by one or more parties involved, or that some other impediment (like being related) was present.

 

[tee_eff_em]

An annulment doesn’t say “No marriage happened” but instead, “the ceremony did not confer the sacramental nature of Christian marriage.”

It was a civil marriage, and it was a marriage presumed valid until it was examined.

:nope:

A declaration of nullity does say that a marriage did not result, even though one was believed to have occurred.

Many civil marriages are presumed to be both valid and sacramental (when contracted between non-Catholic Christians who are not otherwise impeded from doing so).

As for a couple in a putative marriage having *lived in sin *-- Perhaps an objective state of sin, but certainly not mortal sin (which requires full knowledge & consent) and likely with reduced culpability. :twocents:

tee

 

[Dorothy]

Recently I’ve been thinking/researching a bit about the Catholic and Orthodox views on divorce and remarriage… and I’m a bit confused about something. I was hoping someone could help me out

When I read Christ’s words in the Gospel, I get the impression that He is saying that only unfaithfulness can truly destroy a marriage. Thus if a person remarries after their spouse was unfaithful to them, they are not committing adultery. However, He did not mention any other reason. The Orthodox Church however, grants divorce and remarriage for various reasons… doesn’t this mean that it allows remarriage while the first marriage is still in place, if no marital infidelity took place? I hope this question makes sense.

My second question is… for this reason, the Catholic view makes more sense to me, because it clarifies that a marriage can’t be simply “dissolved”, and so a person can’t remarry if the first marriage is still valid. However, it also teaches that an annulment means that a marriage* never occured*. I’m kind of confused about this too… I’ve heard some Orthodox say that it is an incorrect view because it means that the couple lived in sin, thinking they had a valid marriage. What would be the Catholic reply to this statement? Also, can we see annulments in the early Church; when did they start?

At this point, I don’t quite understand either the Orthodox or the Catholic view entirely… the Orthodox position makes no sense to me because it claims to dissolve marriage - when Christ said this is not possible except for unfaithfulness; and the Catholic position is also confusing for me for the reasons I stated.

Thank you!

To understand exactly what the Lord meant by what he said in Scripture one needs to understand the language in which the Scripture was translated from. Here is an explanation from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

The Church does NOT teach that one can divorce due to infidelity.

Decree of nullity is different from divorce.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

Before I begin, let me state straight out - THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES (BOTH ORIENTAL AND EASTERN) ALSO PRACTICE THE GRANTING OF ANNULMENTS.

When I read Christ’s words in the Gospel, I get the impression that He is saying that only unfaithfulness can truly destroy a marriage. Thus if a person remarries after their spouse was unfaithful to them, they are not committing adultery. However, He did not mention any other reason. The Orthodox Church however, grants divorce and remarriage for various reasons… doesn’t this mean that it allows remarriage while the first marriage is still in place, if no marital infidelity took place? I hope this question makes sense.

Several points to consider:

1. Christ’s words regarding divorce do not give permission for remarriage. In fact, Christ states that the one who remarries the woman put away is guilty of adultery. If the marriage was truly dissolved in Christ’s eyes, then the woman put away would have no bonds and she would be free to marry. But Christ clearly states (not just implies) that this woman is still bonded to her original spouse, and therefore the one who marries her commits adultery.
2. The Eastern Orthodox Churches permit divorce and remarriage beyond what is allowed by divine law. This includes, among other things, if the spouse is imprisoned for an indefinite period, and mental illness of one of the spouses. The Oriental Orthodox Churches are much more strict. The OO have a formal teaching on the indissolubility of marriage until death. The OO do permit remarriage due to adultery, but the rationale is not exactly “the spouse has committed adultery, and therefore the bond is broken.” Rather, the OO view it in terms of spiritual death. So whereas the CC teach “marriage is indissoluble until physical death,” the OO teach “marriage is indissoluble until spiritual death.” Spiritual death in the marriage can occur due to infidelity, and it can also occur due to apostasy. Those are basically the only two reasons I know of wherein divorce and remarriage is permitted among the OO - infidelity and apostasy. It should be noted that, from the Coptic perspective, “apostasy” does not mean leaving the Coptic Orthdox Faith. It means leaving Christianity. So if a Coptic Orthodox spouse becomes Catholic, for example, that is not grounds for divorce and remarriage; but if the CO spouse becomes athiest, or Muslim, that is indeed grounds for divorce and remarriage.
3. Distinguish between permission to separate from permission to divorce and remarry. Even the Catholic Church admits the spiritual value of separation in certain circumstances. Being able to remarry is another thing altogether.

My second question is… for this reason, the Catholic view makes more sense to me, because it clarifies that a marriage can’t be simply “dissolved”, and so a person can’t remarry if the first marriage is still valid. However, it also teaches that an annulment means that a marriage* never occured*. I’m kind of confused about this too… I’ve heard some Orthodox say that it is an incorrect view because it means that the couple lived in sin, thinking they had a valid marriage. What would be the Catholic reply to this statement?

Orthodox who use this argument are simply unaware that the Orthodox Churches (both Oriental and Eastern) also practice the granting of annulments. The normal reasons accepted are: existence of prior marriage; consanguinity; lack of willful consent. lack of valid form. Basically, the exact same reasons that the CC utilizes to determine if an annulment is appropriate. Orthodox have no valid reason to criticize the principle of granting annulments. The practice can certainly be abused and hence criticized, but the practice itself cannot be impugned, and those who do so are either innocently ignorant of the fact that the Orthodox Churches also grant annulments, or they know and are hypocrites.

As to your specific question about living in sin, objectively, sin is always a willful action. If a couple does not know that their marriage is valid, how is it possible that they are sinning?

Also, can we see annulments in the early Church; when did they start?

The principle of annulments were recognized for sacraments in general, not just marriage. The most common annulments were with respect to marriage, baptism, and holy orders. Another way to put it is “is the Sacrament invalid?” If it was invalid, then the Sacrament never took place. So there were marriages that were regarded as never having occurred in the early Church due to, for example, consanguinity, or lack of willful consent, and when this was discovered, the spouses were instructed to separate and do penance; there were Baptisms by certain heretics that were considered invalid, and therefore “rebaptism” was performed; likewise, for holy orders, confirmation, etc.

There are many canons reflecting this reality in the early Church. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to cite them for you right now.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

My problem with the Catholic practice of annulments is that it seems to be used in exactly the same way as divorce, only with a different name, to avoid technically breaching the gospel prohibition. In every case of annulment that I’ve personally heard of, the reasons for the annulment were the same as a divorce - infidelity, abuse, or just an inability to love and live with each other. The Catholic Church then finds some ostensible ground for the annulment and dissolves the marriage for a fee. Am I wrong in this?

 

[josephdaniel29]

My problem with the Catholic practice of annulments is that it seems to be used in exactly the same way as divorce, only with a different name, to avoid technically breaching the gospel prohibition. In every case of annulment that I’ve personally heard of, the reasons for the annulment were the same as a divorce - infidelity, abuse, or just an inability to love and live with each other. The Catholic Church then finds some ostensible ground for the annulment and dissolves the marriage for a fee. Am I wrong in this?

In principle, yes you are wrong; in practice, not necessarily so. The way annulments are used here in the States it’s possible to find grounds to annul almost any marriage. Perhaps it’s a good thing, considering the divorce rate among Catholics, that it’s practically impossible to contract a sacramental marriage.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

My problem with the Catholic practice of annulments is that it seems to be used in exactly the same way as divorce, only with a different name, to avoid technically breaching the gospel prohibition. In every case of annulment that I’ve personally heard of, the reasons for the annulment were the same as a divorce - infidelity, abuse, or just an inability to love and live with each other. The Catholic Church then finds some ostensible ground for the annulment and dissolves the marriage for a fee. Am I wrong in this?

There are two points to consider:

1. It is imminently possible that the practice is being abused in the American Catholic Church. SIdbrown cited the statistic that as much as 90% of annulment cases appealed to Rome are overturned. So on the whole, your criticism may not be valid.
2. As to the specific reasons you give: let’s examine each one. In a case of infidelity, it would not be the acts of infidelity that are the determining factor. Rather, there has to be a showing that the unfaithful behavior of the spouse has been ongoing and persistent since even before the marriage. That could point to an inherent inability to actually confer a true and willful “I do” to the requirements of marriage. Rest assured, infidelity itself would be an insufficient reason for the Church to recognize that a marriage never took place.

In the case of abuse, the focus would probably not be on the abusing spouse, but on the spouse being abused. Certain people are attracted to abuse, perhaps because that is all they have known throughout their lives. Such a mindset is not normal, I think even you will admit, and that would point to an inability to give a proper and willful consent to marriage.

As far as “just an inability to love and live with each other.” If an annulment is granted in such an instance, I think it would be an abuse of the practice and would be overturned by Rome. These people obviously would not have entered into marriage if they thought they could not do so. That they did means that at the time of marriage, they wanted to make the effort. On the other hand, if it was an arranged marriage, or there was any kind of external pressure for the couple to marry, then it is likely that the issue of willful consent comes into play.

I hope that helps.

The Catholic Church then finds some ostensible ground for the annulment and dissolves the marriage for a fee.

Keep in mind that an annulment does not “dissolve a marriage,” for a marriage never existed in the first place in order to be dissolved. That is the principle of annulment that is also recognized by the Orthodox Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

In principle, yes you are wrong; in practice, not necessarily so. The way annulments are used here in the States it’s possible to find grounds to annul almost any marriage. Perhaps it’s a good thing, considering the divorce rate among Catholics, that it’s practically impossible to contract a sacramental marriage.

On a purely practical level, that is a very sensible point of view.

Blessings

 

[Monica4316]

Thank you for the replies! that is helpful.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I also had a question for the Eastern Orthodox…

I read that Eastern Orthodox believe that marriage is eternal, so if a husband or wife dies, their spouse is not free to marry, but their 2nd marriage will be penitential just as if they had divorced. Is that true? If so, how are these passage explained?

Romans 7:2–3: “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

thank you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. It is imminently possible that the practice is being abused in the American Catholic Church. SIdbrown cited the statistic that as much as 90% of annulment cases appealed to Rome are overturned. So on the whole, your criticism may not be valid.

I have one personal experience that I draws me to agree with dcointin. I had a friend who at that time we were already in our mid-20s. His father was granted an annulment and got married to a new wife (for the sake of semantics I will avoid the term “remarried”). Granted that my friend’s mother hasn’t lived with his father since I’ve known him when we were in highschool, it does bother me a bit that they were married for a number of years and had 3 children, what else can be grounds for annulment? Also granted I do not know all the facts surrounding their supposed marriage, but knowing that they did consumate the marriage and lived pressumably happilly for a number of years before things went south.

Also I did already hear a RC priest talk about granting an annulment for the good of someone’s soul. Sounds like oikonomia to me. But the context of the discussion was a divorced and remarried non-Catholic coming into the faith.

 

[Harpazo]

I recently posted this on another thread, so I will post it again here.

Fr. Josiah Trenham gave a great lecture series on the Orthodox view of marriage, procreation, etc. I highly recommend them to anyone wanting to better understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Lecture 4, he discusses the issue of divorce, I believe, which is the more popular thing that Roman Catholics like to talk about regarding Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Sword_Brethren]

A big scandal in the Church is the high number of Annulments granted in North America.

“The United States is home to only 6% of the world’s Catholics, Robert Vasoli points out, but it now accounts for 75% of all Church annulments, two-thirds of which are granted on ostensibly psychological grounds. The real scandal, though, is not simply the numbers, but that Church marriage courts annul thousands of marriages that are actually valid according to Catholic teaching. Drawing on considerable research, the author details precisely how these courts let divorced Catholics–and many non-Catholics as well–bypass Catholic teaching and law. He shows, for instance, how they often help petitioners manufacture grounds for annulment, which are justified with specious psychological reasoning that are counter to the letter and spirit of canon law. Indeed, it may even be alleged that “lack of emotional maturity” at the time of the wedding can invalidate marriages that have lasted 30 years. The result has been a tidal wave: in 1968, the American church granted fewer than 600 annulments; today it hands out more than 60,000 a year.”

flipkart.com/god-has-joined-together-robert-book-0195107640

 

[Madaglan]

Recently I’ve been thinking/researching a bit about the Catholic and Orthodox views on divorce and remarriage… and I’m a bit confused about something. I was hoping someone could help me out

When I read Christ’s words in the Gospel, I get the impression that He is saying that only unfaithfulness can truly destroy a marriage. Thus if a person remarries after their spouse was unfaithful to them, they are not committing adultery. However, He did not mention any other reason. The Orthodox Church however, grants divorce and remarriage for various reasons… doesn’t this mean that it allows remarriage while the first marriage is still in place, if no marital infidelity took place? I hope this question makes sense.

My second question is… for this reason, the Catholic view makes more sense to me, because it clarifies that a marriage can’t be simply “dissolved”, and so a person can’t remarry if the first marriage is still valid. However, it also teaches that an annulment means that a marriage* never occured*. I’m kind of confused about this too… I’ve heard some Orthodox say that it is an incorrect view because it means that the couple lived in sin, thinking they had a valid marriage. What would be the Catholic reply to this statement? Also, can we see annulments in the early Church; when did they start?

At this point, I don’t quite understand either the Orthodox or the Catholic view entirely… the Orthodox position makes no sense to me because it claims to dissolve marriage - when Christ said this is not possible except for unfaithfulness; and the Catholic position is also confusing for me for the reasons I stated.

Thank you!

I’ve personally found that looking at these issues from a detached, intellectual standpoint is not the best approach. It’s best to begin with the pastoral standpoint of the Church, as the presence of Christ in the world, having to work through truly failed marriages.

 

[Madaglan]

I also had a question for the Eastern Orthodox…

I read that Eastern Orthodox believe that marriage is eternal, so if a husband or wife dies, their spouse is not free to marry, but their 2nd marriage will be penitential just as if they had divorced. Is that true? If so, how are these passage explained?

Romans 7:2–3: “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

thank you!

– "Look, you are doing what is unlawful according to Paul (and God)!

“Haven’t you read of what Jesus said of David when he and his companions were hungry?–He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.”

"If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

(biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12&version=NIV)

 

[Ghosty]

– "Look, you are doing what is unlawful according to Paul (and God)!

“Haven’t you read of what Jesus said of David when he and his companions were hungry?–He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.”

"If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

(biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12&version=NIV))

Yet Christ Himself condemned the Jews for practicing divorce, while He also spoke of David and his companions eating the consecrated bread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Yet Christ Himself condemned the Jews for practicing divorce, while He also spoke of David and his companions eating the consecrated bread.

Peace and God bless!

When Pharisees come up to him asking if it’s lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason, it’s no wonder he responds against divorce as He does.

In Christ’s words, I do not see an absolute prohibition of divorce. With the wicked generation, he needs to come down hard, but he makes an allowance of divorce for sexual immorality.

 

[Madaglan]

(continued from last post)
His earthly father considered divorcing Mary along these lines, and was not reproached for this intention; and even God himself earlier gave a certificate of divorce to Israel due to her immorality (Jeremiah 3:8).

This is not however to say that divorce is good; far from it. I just don’t see it as always unjustified.

As I understand the situation, the Catholic disagreement with the Orthodox is less with divorce than with re-marriage after divorce (when the spouse from the first marriage is still living).