Difficulties with Catholic teachings on marriage, sexuality and revelation

[Tybourne]

Hi

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved, as it is a covenant formed by God. So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side. Why can this not happen with marriage?

I believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians say that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved. We say this is impossible. Recently, I heard an interview with a priest who said that the Orthodox have never held an ecumenical council since the great schism. He said the Orthodox could not hold a general council without the Bishop of Rome. My understanding is that the Church before the Great Schism could be divided into five patriachates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Since the Great Schism, Rome has been out of communion with the Orthodox and Coptic branches of the Church. Therefore, by the same criterion, how can we hold an ecumenical council? In my view, this perspective does not invalidate ecumenical councils since the Schism. However, it does mean that we have to regard all of the Western Church’s teaching since then in light of the practice and belief of the Eastern Church. Perhaps then, they are right and we are wrong, in that a valid marriage can dissolve by the actions of one or both parties.

If you’re still reading by now, thanks. If you decide to reply, thanks again.

 

[ArielRussu]

Hi

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved, as it is a covenant formed by God. So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side. Why can this not happen with marriage?

I believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians say that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved. We say this is impossible. Recently, I heard an interview with a priest who said that the Orthodox have never held an ecumenical council since the great schism. He said the Orthodox could not hold a general council without the Bishop of Rome. My understanding is that the Church before the Great Schism could be divided into five patriachates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Since the Great Schism, Rome has been out of communion with the Orthodox and Coptic branches of the Church. Therefore, by the same criterion, how can we hold an ecumenical council? In my view, this perspective does not invalidate ecumenical councils since the Schism. However, it does mean that we have to regard all of the Western Church’s teaching since then in light of the practice and belief of the Eastern Church. Perhaps then, they are right and we are wrong, in that a valid marriage can dissolve by the actions of one or both parties.

If you’re still reading by now, thanks. If you decide to reply, thanks again.

I believe that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved too. I mean, what if abuse starts years into the marriage and there was ZERO indication that said spouse would end up an abuser? What if one partner made bad choices and got wrapped up with drugs and the wrong crowd?

I don’t agree with the church denying people in these situations an annulment, which has happened. For in order for an annulment to be granted and the marriage nullified, there needs to be an impediment to a "Catholic " marriage present before the vows were made, thus showing that the marriage, according to the Catholic Church, was never valid too begin with.

Then after the annulments denied, tell the abused spouse that they can never remarry, and that they was must stay true to the vows they made to the jerk who abused and maybe even threatened theres and there childrens lives and that its Gods cross for there life now, until the other ex-spouse dies, otherwise they are committing adultery and sinning against God. I say remarry because a civil divorce is allowed especially if one spouse is a danger to the other and children, however a remarriage is not. Of course, priests may also encourage the abused spouse to pray for the abuser and do there best to fix there marriage. However, this does not always work as I once heard of a priest who encouraged a young woman to move back with her abusive husband as God would want her to fix the relationship and a week later she was dead. Her husband killed her.

 

[Brendan]

Hi

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved, as it is a covenant formed by God. So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side. Why can this not happen with marriage?

The Baptismal covenant is never dissolved. The soul is permanently marked and will remain so forever. A person can be unfaithful to the covenant of Baptism, but it is never dissolved.

, Rome has been out of communion with the Orthodox and Coptic branches of the Church. Therefore, by the same criterion, how can we hold an ecumenical council? In my view, this perspective does not invalidate ecumenical councils since the Schism. However, it does mean that we have to regard all of the Western Church’s teaching since then in light of the practice and belief of the Eastern Church. Perhaps then, they are right and we are wrong, in that a valid marriage can dissolve by the actions of one or both parties

.

As an FYI, the bishops of the Orthodox Churches are actually invited to the Ecumenical Councils. Sometimes they choose to participate ( such as the Lyon II ), most times they do not. That is why our Councils are Ecumenical, all valid bishops are, by definition, invited. A Council does not lose it’s Ecumenical status is some invited bishops choose not to go.

 

[RPRPsych]

Hi

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved, as it is a covenant formed by God. So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side. Why can this not happen with marriage?

Baptism imprints an “indelible mark” on the soul, even if a baptised individual commits the sin of apostasy or heresy. So that comparison is not accurate.

The indissolubility of marriage is based on Jesus’ own words in Matthew 19. The Church does permit separation for grave reasons (say, if one spouse is violently abusive, as described by the poster below you) but the nature of a valid marriage bond, “put together by God”, still remains.

I believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians say that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved. We say this is impossible. Recently, I heard an interview with a priest who said that the Orthodox have never held an ecumenical council since the great schism. He said the Orthodox could not hold a general council without the Bishop of Rome. My understanding is that the Church before the Great Schism could be divided into five patriachates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Since the Great Schism, Rome has been out of communion with the Orthodox and Coptic branches of the Church. Therefore, by the same criterion, how can we hold an ecumenical council? In my view, this perspective does not invalidate ecumenical councils since the Schism. However, it does mean that we have to regard all of the Western Church’s teaching since then in light of the practice and belief of the Eastern Church. Perhaps then, they are right and we are wrong, in that a valid marriage can dissolve by the actions of one or both parties.

If you’re still reading by now, thanks. If you decide to reply, thanks again.

I’ll pass on this one since I know very little about this particular issue.

 

[RPRPsych]

Of course, priests may also encourage the abused spouse to pray for the abuser and do there best to fix there marriage. However, this does not always work as I once heard of a priest who encouraged a young woman to move back with her abusive husband as God would want her to fix the relationship and a week later she was dead. Her husband killed her.

If this is true, then it was a serious error of judgment on the part of that particular priest.

 

[Tybourne]

Thanks both of you for your replies.

Ariel, that’s an extreme case and the priest clearly gave bad advice to the woman who was killed. Let’s pray that she is now in the arms of a truly loving, eternal Spouse. In my experience, many priests have a naive, Romantic view of marriage. This is by no means entirely a bad thing. When it comes to advice though, I have found more grounded, realistic views from consecrated sisters than from priests.

Brendan, I would like to agree with you but I still have difficulties. Yes, the baptised person is forever marked by the sacrament. However, the purpose of a covenant, such as baptism or marriage is to create communion between persons. Our Catholic respect for free will is so great, that a person can break the communion with God formed in baptism by mortal sin. They remain in that state until they receive the Sacrament of Mercy. Why can this not happen with marriage, in that two people who have formed a valid communion lose that bond through the actions or choices of one or both?

The point about ecumenical councils seems less convincing to me. Let’s apply the analogy of a family. A rupture occurs in a family, with both sides having contributed to that division, a schism if you will. Now, one branch calls a family reunion and invites the other, even though the cause of the rupture has not been resolved. The invited parts of the family decline the invitation. The branch of the family that invited them then makes important decisions, for example about pieces of property. The inviting branch of the family then says that they invited the others and that, therefore, everyone has had an opportunity to affect the decisions made. Does this seem just?

 

[1ke]

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved,

A valid marriage between two baptized people (that is consummated) cannot be dissolved.

as it is a covenant formed by God.

It is a covenant formed by two people. The sacramental nature of the marriage makes it indissoluble as Jesus teaches us.

So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side.

This is where you are mistaken. The seal of baptism can never be altered, never be dissolved by anyone or anything. The covenant is not “dissolved unilaterally from their side”.

This is just NOT Church teaching in any way.

Why can this not happen with marriage?

Because that is not how Christ established the sacrament.

Rome has been out of communion with the Orthodox and Coptic branches of the Church.

You have that backwards.

Therefore, by the same criterion, how can we hold an ecumenical council?

We do not use the same criteria. All the bishops in union with the Pope form the Magisterium they form an ecumenical council. Those who have put themselves outside of unity with the Pope through schism are welcome to come back any time. Those whose Sees were vacated through schism have been replaced by valid Catholic bishops, or various Sees have been suppressed.

However, it does mean that we have to regard all of the Western Church’s teaching since then in light of the practice and belief of the Eastern Church.

Nope. The charism of infallibility does not extend to those in schism.

 

[ArielRussu]

If this is true, then it was a serious error of judgment on the part of that particular priest.

It was and he felt horrible afterwards and swore never to encourage an abused woman to move back in with the abuser to fix a marriage. Thats should be the woman’s judgement and her judgement alone, she should never have felt forced too in order to be a good Catholic.

 

[1ke]

I believe that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved too. I mean, what if abuse starts years into the marriage and there was ZERO indication that said spouse would end up an abuser? What if one partner made bad choices and got wrapped up with drugs and the wrong crowd?

A person can certainly separate from an abusive situation. That in no way means the marriage is dissolved. Even should they divorce civilly, the bond remains.

I don’t agree with the church denying people in these situations an annulment, which has happened.

The Church has no power to declare that which is valid to be anything other than valid. And it is not the Church but Christ who teaches us that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery.

tell the abused spouse that they can never remarry

Christ tells us that in the Bible. It’s not something the Church made up. What Christ established, the Church is not free to change.

I say remarry because a civil divorce is allowed especially if one spouse is a danger to the other and children, however a remarriage is not.

You are advising against Christ’s own command. That’s serious.

 

[Phemie]

Of course, priests may also encourage the abused spouse to pray for the abuser and do there best to fix there marriage. However, this does not always work as I once heard of a priest who encouraged a young woman to move back with her abusive husband as God would want her to fix the relationship and a week later she was dead. Her husband killed her.

And then there’s the complete opposite.

Back in the 50s our Pastor encouraged my next door neighbour to leave with her daughter and son. Her spouse was abusive, beat her and the daughter whom he blamed for the marriage, and he cheated with as many women as he possibly could. Once he even threatened her with a gun, in front of a witness.

But she didn’t listen to the Pastor, she stayed, had 5 more children, got beaten some more, daughter got beaten some more… 65 years and counting. Only one of the children has had a successful marriage and the oldest son has been doing just what he saw daddy do except the abuse is not physical.

 

[ArielRussu]

And then there’s the complete opposite.

Back in the 50s our Pastor encouraged my next door neighbour to leave with her daughter and son. Her spouse was abusive, beat her and the daughter whom he blamed for the marriage, and he cheated with as many women as he possibly could. Once he even threatened her with a gun, in front of a witness.

But she didn’t listen to the Pastor, she stayed, had 5 more children, got beaten some more, daughter got beaten some more… 65 years and counting. Only one of the children has had a successful marriage and the oldest son has been doing just what he saw daddy do except the abuse is not physical.

Both situations are very sad… My aunt stayed with her abusive husband like your next door neighbor did, my uncle was a woman beater. They had no children, thankfully! He used to put her in the hospital almost monthly. She was very Catholic and back then divorce was very frowned upon (still is) but the difference is, back when my aunt was younger the Church excommunicated people for it. No matter what there reason. A nurse I know took care of a 99 year old patient back in the early 2000s who was TERRIFIED of dying as she believed she was going to Hell for getting a divorce, her husband left her for another woman. Sadly, that was how the church was back then, made some improvements, but still.

 

[RPRPsych]

Both situations are very sad… My aunt stayed with her abusive husband like your next door neighbor did, my uncle was a woman beater. They had no children, thankfully! He used to put her in the hospital almost monthly. She was very Catholic and back then divorce was very frowned upon (still is) but the difference is, back when my aunt was younger the Church excommunicated people for it. No matter what there reason. A nurse I know took care of a 99 year old patient back in the early 2000s who was TERRIFIED of dying as she believed she was going to Hell for getting a divorce, her husband left her for another woman. Sadly, that was how the church was back then, made some improvements, but still.

Is this really true? (I have no knowledge of the old Code of Canon Law, but still, I never knew about this one.)

 

[Allegra]

The point about ecumenical councils seems less convincing to me. Let’s apply the analogy of a family. A rupture occurs in a family, with both sides having contributed to that division, a schism if you will. Now, one branch calls a family reunion and invites the other, even though the cause of the rupture has not been resolved. The invited parts of the family decline the invitation. The branch of the family that invited them then makes important decisions, for example about pieces of property. The inviting branch of the family then says that they invited the others and that, therefore, everyone has had an opportunity to affect the decisions made. Does this seem just?

Why would that not be just? My husband’s family actually has a land trust that that’s exactly how it works. If you don’t show up to the meetings, you don’t have a say.

 

[Tybourne]

A valid marriage between two baptized people (that is consummated) cannot be dissolved.

Yet a valid baptism, by which we are incorporated into communion with the Holy Trinity can be undone by mortal sin. In St Matthew 19, Jesus teaches us that marriages cannot be dissolved, except for unchastity. I am no Greek scholar. I have heard a Catholic priest parse ‘unchastity’ as relating to consanguinity. On the other hand, an Orthodox priest I’ve read says that anyone who puts any created thing above their marriage, has in effect, committed adultery. This interpretation seems congruent with St Matthew 5: 27-30, which precedes the other instance of the Lord’s teaching about divorce. In the same way, we can sin against the first commandment by materialism or workaholism not just by bending in front of literal golden calves.

You have that backwards.

We disagree on this point. The understanding I’ve recieved is that schism is a two-way process. Therefore, it is just as valid to say that we have fallen into schism with Constantinople as it is to say that they have with us.

We do not use the same criteria. All the bishops in union with the Pope form the Magisterium they form an ecumenical council. Those who have put themselves outside of unity with the Pope through schism are welcome to come back any time. Those whose Sees were vacated through schism have been replaced by valid Catholic bishops, or various Sees have been suppressed.

We do not use the same criteria, yet here’s the point, all the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The patriachs of Constantinople and the others form the major branches of Christianity. The Church of the first millenium believed that when the five major patriachates were in agreement, with Rome guiding the process, it was possible to make infallible judgements. My point is that this vital precondition has been missing since the schism. All the bishops, including four of the most important, from the Sees of St Andrew, St Peter’s first See (Antioch), St Mark and St James have not been present. Therefore I can’t see how the councils since then can be ecumenical. Am I missing something?

 

[Tybourne]

Why would that not be just? My husband’s family actually has a land trust that that’s exactly how it works. If you don’t show up to the meetings, you don’t have a say.

Thanks for your reply, Allegra. Let’s say that your husband, as the eldest male in his family, had the casting vote in the event of a draw on a decision about the land trust. I’m sure he wouldn’t do this, but imagine if he then sent round a change to the procedures for voting, stating that he had a right to veto any decision with which he disagreed. Some other members of the family protested but their objections were ignored by the eldest male. Those family members then stayed away from the next meeting. Would any decisions made by those present at that meeting be valid?

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hi

We Catholics claim that a valid marriage cannot be disolved, as it is a covenant formed by God. So is baptism. Yet, even if a person is validly baptised they can still turn away from God to the extent that the covenant is dissolved unilaterally, from their side. Why can this not happen with marriage?

.

Hi Tybourne,

Interesting name. You by chance you do not happen to be a “Lord”?

I will limit my answer to your first question as the second part of your message is a topic for a different forum. Actually, Catholics believe that a good and valid marriage can be dissolved. Only sacramental marriages are permanent, which are the marriages between two baptized Christians. About those who turn away from God; their baptism imprints an eternal mark in their souls so even if they turn from God their covenant remains and they will be judged accordingly when they meet God after passing away.

Viva Cristo Rey!!
Deacon Harbey

 

[1ke]

Yet a valid baptism, by which we are incorporated into communion with the Holy Trinity can be undone by mortal sin.

I don’t know where you got that idea. It is not Church teaching. In fact, it was settled in the second century when the Church debated whether apostates, schsimatics, and heretics needed to be rebaptized.

In St Matthew 19, Jesus teaches us that marriages cannot be dissolved, except for unchastity. I am no Greek scholar. I have heard a Catholic priest parse ‘unchastity’ as relating to consanguinity

Correct, the Greek porneia does not mean “unchastity”.

On the other hand, an Orthodox priest I’ve read says that anyone who puts any created thing above their marriage, has in effect, committed adultery. This interpretation seems congruent with St Matthew 5: 27-30, which precedes the other instance of the Lord’s teaching about divorce. In the same way, we can sin against the first commandment by materialism or workaholism not just by bending in front of literal golden calves.

That’s a hyperbole. But nevertheless, sin does not dissolve the bond of marriage.

We disagree on this point. The understanding I’ve recieved is that schism is a two-way process. Therefore, it is just as valid to say that we have fallen into schism with Constantinople as it is to say that they have with us.

Primacy is in the Holy See. Where the Pope is, there is the Church. So, no it is not correct to say the Catholic Church is in schism with anyone.

The Church of the first millenium believed that when the five major patriachates were in agreement, with Rome guiding the process, it was possible to make infallible judgements.

No. It didn’t. The Church does not accept the idea of the Pentarchy.

My point is that this vital precondition has been missing since the schism. All the bishops, including four of the most important, from the Sees of St Andrew, St Peter’s first See (Antioch), St Mark and St James have not been present. Therefore I can’t see how the councils since then can be ecumenical. Am I missing something?

The Pope replaced schismatic bishops with valid bishops.

Many Sees became dormant due to demographic and geopolitical realities-- i.e. Muslim conquest for example. However, every Catholic and every place on earth is governed by a bishop of some kind-- Eastern or Latin Rite.

It is within the Pope’s authority to erect and to suppress diocese and Sees.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, I would like to agree with you but I still have difficulties. Yes, the baptised person is forever marked by the sacrament. However, the purpose of a covenant, such as baptism or marriage is to create communion between persons. Our Catholic respect for free will is so great, that a person can break the communion with God formed in baptism by mortal sin. They remain in that state until they receive the Sacrament of Mercy. Why can this not happen with marriage, in that two people who have formed a valid communion lose that bond through the actions or choices of one or both?

Again the person is unfaithful to the covenant, but it remains intact.
Yes, the person who violates their baptismal vows is in grave sin, just as a person who violates the marital vows is likewise in grave sin. But in each case, the convenant remains intact. God remains faithful to the convenant, when the sinner seeks forgiveness, there is not a new covenant created, but a fidelity to the already existing covenant. The person is not, and cannot be re-baptized, in fact, ‘rebaptism’ is really a contradiction in terms.

The point about ecumenical councils seems less convincing to me. Let’s apply the analogy of a family. A rupture occurs in a family, with both sides having contributed to that division, a schism if you will. Now, one branch calls a family reunion and invites the other, even though the cause of the rupture has not been resolved. The invited parts of the family decline the invitation. The branch of the family that invited them then makes important decisions, for example about pieces of property. The inviting branch of the family then says that they invited the others and that, therefore, everyone has had an opportunity to affect the decisions made. Does this seem just?

Yes, it does seem just. Why would there be an injustice in that? The inviting family members made every reasonable effort to invite the other for a discussion. That is thoroughly an act of Justice. Justice, per Aquinas, is the Virtue by which each is given what they are due. The inviting family acted with Justice, in that they gave the others what they are due, and invitation to participate. The inviting family had no authority to compel, in fact doing so would have been an injustice. Likewise, the decisions had to be made, so not making the decision would have been an injustice to the family.

Ergo, Justice was done.

 

[Tybourne]

Perhaps it’s worth trying a few syllogisms?

I don’t know where you got that idea. It is not Church teaching. In fact, it was settled in the second century when the Church debated whether apostates, schsimatics, and heretics needed to be rebaptized.

1. Baptism and marriage are both sacraments, in which God creates a communion of persons.
2. Free will means that a person can choose to deny the genuine communion established in baptism and to live in separation eternally from God.
3. Therefore, one party in a marriage can similarly choose to exercise their free will in a way that destroys the communion of persons established, meaning that the bond is in effect null, even if it was genuine when established.

Primacy is in the Holy See. Where the Pope is, there is the Church. So, no it is not correct to say the Catholic Church is in schism with anyone.

1. The primacy conferred on St Peter and his successors is ordered towards the New Covenant established by Christ, according to His right, as Messiah and God.
2. The other apostles and their successors including those of Ss Andrew, Mark and James, can turn to St Peter and his successors to strengthen their faith.
3. Therefore, if St Peter or one of his successors acts in a way contrary to the unity for which Christ came, prayed and died, in the eyes of those brethren whom Peter is meant to strengthen, he invalidates his primacy in that instance and to the extent in which he weakens rather than strengthening the Covenant.

The Church does not accept the idea of the Pentarchy.

1. The Church was created by the Holy Trinity at Pentecost, through the action of the Holy Spirit conferred on the apostles in communion with our Blessed Mother, Jesus and the Father.
2. This apostolic foundation continues in perpetuity in handing on the authority received by the action of the same Spirit.
3. Therefore, the Church is truly, fully present when and only when the holder of the See of Peter is in communion with those of Andrew, Mark and James.

If there is something wrong in these lines of reasoning, please point it out. Thank you.

 

[Usagi]

Perhaps it’s worth trying a few syllogisms?

1. Baptism and marriage are both sacraments, in which God creates a communion of persons.
2. Free will means that a person can choose to deny the genuine communion established in baptism and to live in separation eternally from God.
3. Therefore, one party in a marriage can similarly choose to exercise their free will in a way that destroys the communion of persons established, meaning that the bond is in effect null, even if it was genuine when established.

As several people have noted, the action of the mortal sinner does not break the sacrament or the covenant, though it may change the blessings of the covenant to curses for that person. God remains faithful and ready to forgive.

In fact, that’s WHY marriage in particular is indissoluble. The union between husband and wife is an earthly image of the union between Christ and His Church. And even if the Bride is unfaithful, the Bridegroom is always ready to pursue her and take her back.

1. The primacy conferred on St Peter and his successors is ordered towards the New Covenant established by Christ, according to His right, as Messiah and God.
2. The other apostles and their successors including those of Ss Andrew, Mark and James, can turn to St Peter and his successors to strengthen their faith.
3. Therefore, if St Peter or one of his successors acts in a way contrary to the unity for which Christ came, prayed and died, in the eyes of those brethren whom Peter is meant to strengthen, he invalidates his primacy in that instance and to the extent in which he weakens rather than strengthening the Covenant.

Why is it not equally plausible that brethren who go into schism from Peter invalidate their place in the Magisterium (though not their ordination, which like marriage and baptism is irrevocable) until they rejoin him? If the split was a matter of mutual guilt, why does your syllogism blame Peter alone?

1. The Church was created by the Holy Trinity at Pentecost, through the action of the Holy Spirit conferred on the apostles in communion with our Blessed Mother, Jesus and the Father.
2. This apostolic foundation continues in perpetuity in handing on the authority received by the action of the same Spirit.
3. Therefore, the Church is truly, fully present when and only when the holder of the See of Peter is in communion with those of Andrew, Mark and James.

If there is something wrong in these lines of reasoning, please point it out. Thank you.

Why stop with those four? Why not insist that the successors of all twelve are required?