Ecclesiastical Divorce and the Orthodox

[Hesychios]

As an aside, can anyone shed light on when/why this developed, the sacramental marriage being conferred by the couple on each other? Did this parallel the development of the annulment process/tribunals?

Baffling.

I don’t know, but since it is a rather sophisticated line of reasoning I’d suspect it had scholastic era origins.

In other words, perhaps the church already had a practice (such as baptism, or separating the parties to a marriage) and later scholars tried to affix a rationale to it that would satisfy their own concerns.

Interestingly, in those famous Latin Catholic cases I am vaguely familiar with which ultimately required an annulment (Eleanor of Aquitane, Henry VIII) the language used was of divorce, the instrument being an annulment.

 

[TrueLight]

As an aside, can anyone shed light on when/why this developed, the sacramental marriage being conferred by the couple on each other? Did this parallel the development of the annulment process/tribunals?

Baffling.

This is a good article, especially the seciion on Minister of the Sacrament, Matter and Form.

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Wow. This quote is really biased against women, LOL.

Yeah, some Church fathers had strange views on women. I’m glad that we no longer endorse such views as Christians in general.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc Anthony. I first heard the term "Ecclesiastical divorce from you in the other thread, so thanks for contributing to this thread.

I think this is a subject that the Church needs to give serious thought to, so I’m very interested in it.

Is what Pope Benedict referring to tied to the annulment process? The “hardness of heart” referred to in Matthew refers to actual divorce.

I’m not really sure of your question…I think Cardinal Ratzinger was saying that the hardness of heart of the Old Covenant still exists in humanity. Now, Jesus changed the Sacrament of marriage back to what it originally was, but the reality is people still sin and we must have a way to account for that.

Also, how does one admit divorced people into communion without it being scandalous or the importance of marriage being trivialized?

Cardinal Ratzinger talks about the Church having a long period of serious reflection on whether or not the second marriage now has moral obligations. It doesn’t cause scandal because the Church is not approving the second marriage, per se, but rather recognizing that the second marriage was originally a sin but is now a reality that must be cared for as long as the divorced and remarried person has repented; remember, they have to repent sincerely if the Church will consider admitting them to Communion. They’re not accepting the second marriage just like the first one.

The first marriage is a sacrament; the second marriage is not.

Also, pay attention to the specific wording of the document:

the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage.

I take this to mean that the Priest must inform the Congregation what exactly is going on so that scandal may be avoided. This might be embarassing but it is a serious issue and I agree with this method of avoiding scandal. This is a very serious issue and there are consequences.

I understand why people may need to get divorced in certain situations and I understand in certain situations it is impractical to tell someone to live like brother and sister or to tell them to break up the second marriage especially where there are children involved.

Exactly, that’s what the document is trying to address.

St Basil is referenced in the current catechism in regards to divorce.

Citation 178 comes from St. Basil, Moralia 73,1G 31,849-852.

I have a basic question to everyone. Are not the Eastern Fathers also considered Church Fathers? Is it considered a big deal to quote St Basil?

Yes, the Eastern Fathers are indeed Church Fathers, but this is a big deal because Eastern Fathers are being used to define LATIN Church theology. The Eastern Fathers have always been a huge part of Eastern Church theology, of course. But it’s significant that Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Catechism, are using them to influence Latin theology.

 

[mardukm]

I think the catechism took this quotation a little bit out of context, however. This epistle seems to be St. Basil’s response to questions sent to him by his fellow bishop, Amphilochius. The specificity of the response seems to indicate that Amphilochius must have asked Basil about a particular case involving real people within his flock. Basil in his response mentions that the custom allows for the man to withdraw from wedlock and live with another woman in the case of adultery, but it does not make this same allowance for the woman should the man engage in adultery.

I would agree that the Catechism took it a little bit out of context, but I imagine that the authors were taking the spirit of the passage instead of the letter into account. In another place, regarding certain particulars about divorce/remarriage/adultery, St. Basil comments that he knows of no canons with respect to men on the matter, but only women.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

In accordance with Church Canon Law, an Ecclesiastical Divorce is granted only under certain circumstances In accordance with the 21 November 1973 encyclical of His Eminence, Archbishop Iakovos, a divorce is given and considered valid, when a marriage is entered into by force, blackmail or false reasons.

Interesting. In the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, these are grounds for annulment, but in the EOC, it is grounds for divorce.

However, I am certain that I have read articles in the past from EO that marked the above reasons as grounds for annulment. Can any of our EO brethren here confirm or correct?

Also, on what grounds do EO (or certain EO) believe that a marriage entered into by force is a true marriage in the eyes of God that would merit a divroce, as opposed to a decree of nullity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would agree that the Catechism took it a little bit out of context, but I imagine that the authors were taking the spirit of the passage instead of the letter into account. In another place, regarding certain particulars about divorce/remarriage/adultery, St. Basil comments that he knows of no canons with respect to men on the matter, but only women.

Blessings,
Marduk

That he knew only of canons regarding women would be consistent with the admission that custom allows for men to divorce women by Mt. 5:32, but not for women to divorce men by the same verse.

 

[TrueLight]

I take this to mean that the **Priest must inform the Congregation what exactly is going on so that scandal may be avoided. **This might be embarassing but it is a serious issue and I agree with this method of avoiding scandal. This is a very serious issue and there are consequences.

Yeah. I don’t see that happening in this modern age.

I agree it would be good form of penance and it would remove the scandal factor. At the same time, it would stigmatize the couple. Some might say this is a good form of penance.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yeah. I don’t see that happening in this modern age.

I agree it would be good form of penance and it would remove the scandal factor. At the same time, it would stigmatize the couple. Some might say this is a good form of penance.

On the other hand, in the modern age I don’t see how we’re not allowing sincerely contrite remarried couples to receive the Eucharist in the first place, so we can pray.

Anyway, even if that condition of Cardinal Ratzinger’s was removed (although I like it very much) it might be enough to avoid scandal simply to make it aware to people that allowing the Eucharist to remarried couples is acceptable in special circumstances.

This way if people see a remarried couple going up to receive the Eucharist they can think, “Oh, I suppose they’re allowed to receive Communion under the Ratzinger plan”. At least that’s what they should think. Innocent until proven guilty.

So scandal, in any case, shouldn’t propose an issue. If it were me though I would go with Cardinal Ratzinger’s original plan of informing the congregation (and I agree-it would be an excellent form of penance! The Church would have to make it clear that this is an extreme situation to be avoided if AT ALL possible. It shouldn’t be the norm).

It also doesn’t necessarily have to be negative. The Priest could simply say, “I am pleased to inform all of you that our brother and sister Mr. and Mrs. X are returning to the Church after a period of absence resulting from a civil divorce. They have showed true contrition and the Church would like to welcome them back with open arms. Let us rejoice and congratulate them on their decision to come back to the flock.”

It may still be embarrassing but at least it doesn’t have to be negative.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Actually, I’ve reread the article and I think originally I may have misinterpreted it. Take a look at that specific line again:
*
the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage.*

So the Priest doesn’t have to inform the Congregation necessarily to avoid scandal. The congregation should bear witness and put forth testimony that the couple is acting truly contrite.

So scandal is avoided because the Church members should be giving testimony to the renewed holiness of the couple. They already know.

Like I said though, to avoid scandal this isn’t technically a necessity. It should be enough to inform the Congregation that the Ratzinger plan is a possibility.

 

[manualman]

Thanks Hesychios. The reasons mentioned above are pretty reasonable. I never understood why adultery is not a cause for divorce when Jesus himself mentions it in Matthew 5:32.

As I understand it from a classical Greek seminary professor (not that I took the class, mind you), Jesus did NOT make an exception for ‘adultery.’ The word is ‘pornea’ (IIRC) and the most likely translation means something along the lines of ‘an inherently immoral union.’ This would cover things like being married to a sibling or parent (yeck!), polygamy, or other debauched basis of marriage. As I understand it, it is a violence to the word to distort it into meaning an act of unfaithfulness.

And really, this is the entire reason that there can’t be any sort of divorce without vacating the words of Jesus himself. Yes, it’s a hard teaching. But who else has the words of eternal life?

• Separation to protect the innocent from the guilty? Sure.
• Decree of nullity when one or both parties never genuinely entered into the marriage (remember, it’s not the priest who makes them married. They confect the sacrament on one another)? Reasonable and consistent.
• Correcting Jesus and establishing circumstances when man can divide what God has joined? Never.

 

[TrueLight]

As I understand it from a classical Greek seminary professor (not that I took the class, mind you), Jesus did NOT make an exception for ‘adultery.’ The word is ‘pornea’ (IIRC) and the most likely translation means something along the lines of ‘an inherently immoral union.’ This would cover things like being married to a sibling or parent (yeck!), polygamy, or other debauched basis of marriage. As I understand it, it is a violence to the word to distort it into meaning an act of unfaithfulness.

That’s not my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. Some references would be great.

• Correcting Jesus and establishing circumstances when man can divide what God has joined? Never.

Aren’t a lot of annulments the recognition of the civil divorce, which technically “divide what God has joined”?

Yes, annulments declare a marriage invalid, but to even apply for an annulment, there has to be a civil divorce. So once you get an annulment, you can remarry. Although there are circumstances where it is obvious that a marriage was invalid, are all marriages deemed invalid actually invalid?

I don’t see much difference between that and divorce and remarriage.

 

[mardukm]

That’s not my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. Some references would be great.

I believe brother manualman was pointing out that the word for adultery in Greek is not porneia (which is the word used in the relevant passage), but rather moixeia. Isn’t it blasphemous to twist the meaning of a biblical passage? If Jesus truly did not say, “except for adultery…,” but rather “except for sexual perversion…” (e.g., marriage between blood relations, prostitution, etc.), who are we to put words in His mouth?

Aren’t a lot of annulments the recognition of the civil divorce, which technically “divide what God has joined”?

That is incorrect. The condition of a civil divorce is only a practical consideration, to make certain that all the legalities are taken care of in case and especially if children are involved. The civil divorce adds absolutely nothing to the Church’s recognition that a marriage never took place.

Yes, annulments declare a marriage invalid, but to even apply for an annulment, there has to be a civil divorce.

Already explained above.

So once you get an annulment, you can remarry. Although there are circumstances where it is obvious that a marriage was invalid, are all marriages deemed invalid actually invalid?

The Roman rota has actually overturned several thousand decrees of nullity in the U.S over the past two decades.

I don’t see much difference between that and divorce and remarriage.

You really think that a marriage between brother and sister, or a forced marriage are true marriages in the eyes of God? You seriously don’t see much difference in the idea that a marriage never took place, and the idea that a marriage bond is being broken?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrueLight]

You really think that a marriage between brother and sister, or a forced marriage are true marriages in the eyes of God? You seriously don’t see much difference in the idea that a marriage never took place, and the idea that a marriage bond is being broken?

Blessings,
Marduk

Since it’s not obvious that I’m not referring to marriage between brothers and sisters and forced marriages, let me say it now.

I am not referring to marriages between brothers and sisters and forced marriages and marriages where someone completely swindled the second party. Those are exceptions.

I am referring to a marriage for example that is deemed invalid because the parties were “immature” and what appears to me to be a general attitude of “Apply for an annulment. You never know.”

That is incorrect. The condition of a civil divorce is only a practical consideration, to make certain that all the legalities are taken care of in case and especially if children are involved. The civil divorce adds absolutely nothing to the Church’s recognition that a marriage never took place.

Here is what I mean. Is it okay to get divorced in the eyes of the Church? No. One may get a civil divorce if the circumstances require it, however one may not remarry.

However, if one’s marriage is considered to be invalid, then one may remarry and one cannot get an annulment without the divorce anyway, so there is a link there.

In any case, as this thread evolves, I’m realizing that I’m really interested in looking at the similarities and differences between annulments and the Ecclesiastical divorce.

I’m not convinced they are so different.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I believe brother manualman was pointing out that the word for adultery in Greek is not porneia (which is the word used in the relevant passage), but rather moixeia.

Porneia is a very general term for sexual immorality and perversion. When Paul, for example, writes in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, because of porneia, it is best that each man should take a wife and each woman a husband. Now if porneia meant unlawful unions (incest, polygamy, etc.), this verse would make little sense, for how would allowing for a man to take a wife prevent him from entering into one of these immoral unions? Furthermore, St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis of this passage supports understanding porneia as adultery, for he writes in his seventeenth homily on the Gospel of Matthew:And not thus only, but in another way also He has lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He says, Except for the cause of fornication [porneia]; since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.

newadvent.org/fathers/200117.htm

Now why would he say that in keeping a wife who defiled herself with many, the result would be adultery, unless he meant that the wife was engaging in sexual behavior outside of the marriage?

 

[mardukm]

I am referring to a marriage for example that is deemed invalid because the parties were “immature”

Please clarify. I for one don’t believe a 9 year old, or even most 16 year olds can give proper consent. Do you think a marriage based purely on sexual attraction or lust is a true marriage in the eyes of God? Isn’t it possible that such “marriages” do happen?

“Apply for an annulment. You never know.”

The Roman rota takes it more seriously than the local Churches, which is why they overturn a lot of these decrees of nullity. So there is a real difference.

Here is what I mean. Is it okay to get divorced in the eyes of the Church? No. One may get a civil divorce if the circumstances require it, however one may not remarry.

However, if one’s marriage is considered to be invalid, then one may remarry and one cannot get an annulment without the divorce anyway, so there is a link there.

Again, the civil divorce is only a practical (i.e., legal) consideration and has nothing to do with whether or not a marriage ever took place in the eyes of the Church. The fact is, most people get an annulment when they want to remarry. If they want to remarry, it is a LEGAL requirement to have a civil divorce. Does that explain it? Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ecclesiastical decree of nullity itself.

I’m not convinced they are so different.

As far as the practical outcome, there is no difference. People go through a marriage ceremony again. As far as the Church is concerned, when an annulment is granted, the subsequent marriage is a first marriage. When an ecclesiastical divorce is granted, the subsequent marriage is a second marriage (or third). That’s a big difference.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[manualman]

If a tribunal is run correctly, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with “apply for a decree of nullity. You never know.” The average layperson is generally poorly catechized and not educated in the difference between an invalid marriage and a disasterous, but valid one. Even educated people are rather biased and so the tribunal can be a tremendously healing and catechizing experience.

Like any bureacracy, it can also turn into a ‘catholic divorce’ if not conducted properly. As to how many are good and how many poor, I wouldn’t know since I’ve never been involved. But at the level of principle there is an enormous gulf between discerning that the two never married in the first place versus rationalizing the divorce and remarriage of people whom God had joined supernaturally.

Can the tribunals be wrong? Sure. Can a dishonest person ‘game’ the system to get a ruling they desire? Probably. Is God fooled by all of this? Nope. You can’t break the moral law, you can only suffer the consequences of trying. The annullment process is a tool the church provides as a mercy to those honestly struggling to tell right from wrong. But without repudiating Jesus, I can’t see any way in which the Church could permit validly married people to divorce and remarry. Perhaps that’s just me, but the Ratzinger quotes provided above are bewildering to me.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Perhaps that’s just me, but the Ratzinger quotes provided above are bewildering to me.

Ratzinger is not saying that it is permissible to get remarried after divorce; on the contrary he says it is a grave sin and not a sacrament.

He merely recognizes remarriage after divorce as a reality and in the document attempted to offer a way for remarried, but contrite, Catholics to both fulfill their moral obligations to their spouses and families and once again be in good standing in the Church.

He is not giving any allowances for divorce whatsoever; according to the document it would still be a grave sin, and the remarriage is not a true Sacramental marriage like the first marriage was.

 

[manualman]

That’s not my understanding of the word, but I could be wrong. Some references would be great.

The mistranslation of porneia (thanks for the spelling fix, M!) has a long history. This is the priest I’ve heard on the radio address the question several times. His academic qualifications are superb and he has (to quote him) spent years “teaching dead languages to comatose seminarians.”

The article quoted is a lighthearted one, but the chops behind his translation are legit.

rev-know-it-all.com/2010/2010—02-07.html

 

[mardukm]

Porneia is a very general term for sexual immorality and perversion. When Paul, for example, writes in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, because of porneia, it is best that each man should take a wife and each woman a husband. Now if porneia meant unlawful unions (incest, polygamy, etc.), this verse would make little sense, for how would allowing for a man to take a wife prevent him from entering into one of these immoral unions?

You really need to ask this question? With marriage comes Graces (that’s why it is considered a Sacrament by the Church), and the Grace of marriage can overcome many perversions. Paul obviously had a very solid understanding of the supernatural element of Marriage, likening it even to the bond between Christ and His Church.

Furthermore, St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis of this passage supports understanding porneia as adultery, for he writes in his seventeenth homily on the Gospel of Matthew:And not thus only, but in another way also He has lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He says, Except for the cause of fornication [porneia]; since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.

newadvent.org/fathers/200117.htm

Now why would he say that in keeping a wife who defiled herself with many, the result would be adultery, unless he meant that the wife was engaging in sexual behavior outside of the marriage?

I’m you’ve taken the passage out of context. The homily starts with the passage against adultery (“if you even look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery”). Chrysostom is simply saying that Jesus is relating this current passage to his earlier statement on adultery. This is clearly evident because Chrysostom immediately says afterwards “Do you see how these sayings agree with what had gone before?” So when Chrysostom says “He (Jesus) would have made the matter end again in adultery,” Chrysostom is not equating porneia with moixeia, but rather simply saying that this current passage where porneia is used is being used by Jesus to strengthen his earlier message (“the matter”) about adultery. Seriously, Cavaradossi, Jesus utilizes porneia and moixeia in the SAME passage. Why would he bother to do that if he was not differentiating the two? Aren’t Jesus’ plain words enough?

Blessings,
Marduk