Ecclesiastical Divorce and the Orthodox

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Yes many perversions, which is exactly what the meaning of porneia is. Porneia does not mean just unlawful, incestuous marriages, but is a broad term for sexual perversions.

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?

I think you’re the one misreading it. Immediately after he writeso you see how these sayings agree with what had gone before? For he who looks not with unchaste eyes upon another woman, will not commit whoredom; and not committing whoredom, he will give no occasion to the husband to cast out his wife.

Therefore, you see, after this He presses the point without reserve, and builds up this fear as a bulwark, urging on the husband the great danger, if he do cast her out, in that he makes himself accountable for her adultery. Thus, lest you being told, pluck out the eye, should suppose this to be said even of a wife: He added in good time this corrective, in one way only giving leave to cast her out, but no otherwise.
In other words, do not look at a woman with lust, as you will put her into whoredom and give her husband cause to cast her out and cause her to be an adulterer. Do not cast your wife out as you will be responsible for sending her into adultery. However, the corrective is added that in the case of the wife committing πορνεία, she may be cast out. Again, I ask, if πορνεία meant here incestuous marriage, how would this exegesis make sense? It is clear that St. John Chrysostom understands πορνεία not to mean an already invalid incestuous marriage but to mean any sexual perversion committed by the wife, for while μοιχέια is a narrow term, meaning a sexual relationship which pollutes a married woman, πορνεία (translated as fornication) is a broad term which encompasses illicit sexual relations which may not result in μοιχεία per se. This usage is consistent with St. Basil’s usage of the two terms. Observe, for example, how he makes this distinction clear in his second canonical epistle, where he writes:If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment. Nevertheless, we have no canon subjecting him to the charge of adultery, if the sin be committed against an unmarried woman. For the adulteress, it is said, being polluted shall be polluted, Jeremiah*3:1 and she shall not return to her husband: and He that keeps an adulteress is a fool and impious. He, however, who has committed fornication is not to be cut off from the society of his own wife. So the wife will receive the husband on his return from fornication, but the husband will expel the polluted woman from his house. The argument here is not easy, but the custom has so obtained.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm
A quick glance at the Patrologia Graeca (volume 32, page 721), will reveal that the word translated as fornication is πορνείαν, and the word translated as adultery is μοιχείας. Again, if πορνεία meant an unlawful and incestuous marriage, how would this canon make sense? Surely it only makes sense if we admit that πορνείαν is a broader term than μοιχεία for while μοιχεία involves the defilement of a married woman, πορνεία does not.

 

[twf]

…

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.

…

That is, the Roman Rota takes it more seriously than the majority of local particular Churches in the United States… I have no reason to believe that annulments are so commonly given outside of the United States. In fact, I have seen stats that suggest that the MAJORITY of decrees of nullity given throughout the Church Universal are found in the dioceses of the United States. I personally have no idea how readily decrees of nullity are given in my home archdiocese of Vancouver, Canada, but I know that our tribunal is shared by 3 or 4 other particular churches in the region (including a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy!)…so I don’t think that the number of cases can be that high… regardless, from what I remember, the stats for Africa, Asia, and even Latin America were quite low compared to the US.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is, the Roman Rota takes it more seriously than the majority of local particular Churches in the United States… I have no reason to believe that annulments are so commonly given outside of the United States. In fact, I have seen stats that suggest that the MAJORITY of decrees of nullity given throughout the Church Universal are found in the dioceses of the United States. I personally have no idea how readily decrees of nullity are given in my home archdiocese of Vancouver, Canada, but I know that our tribunal is shared by 3 or 4 other particular churches in the region (including a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy!)…so I don’t think that the number of cases can be that high… regardless, from what I remember, the stats for Africa, Asia, and even Latin America were quite low compared to the US.

I don’t know the stats for here too. The UGCC Eparchy which I am a part of, well, we don’t have the proper personal to handle such a tribunal. We’re a small particular Church, so we just work with RCAV.

Back in the Philippines, I don’t know how many seek annulments. Although I do know at least one example. The cultural beliefs surrounding marriage are a bad mix of traditional conservatism of Catholicism, and liberal Western thought. Most of those who separate from their spouses usually end up with a partner who is also separated from their spouse, they live together and have their own family without marriage. Because there is no civil divorce and there is no Church divorce. So people still know and follow Church teaching to a degree, that is no divorces and no remarriage. But unfortunately it feeds into a very liberal lifestyle of cohabiting non-spouses. And many become quite comfortable with that. I know a lot of people in this situation.

And this is where the ekonimia sets in. Would you rather have these two live together the rest of their lives in sin? Some people do become faithful and live a good life with their second partner. Divorce is a sin no matter what, thus penance for that. The second marriage? Ekonomia, as St. Paul has said, “it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Do you expect those who divorced to remain celibate the rest of their lives? That is a tall order. You’re essentially asking anyone with a failed marriage to become a monk.

 

[Hesychios]

… Do you expect those who divorced to remain celibate the rest of their lives? That is a tall order. You’re essentially asking anyone with a failed marriage to become a monk.

Realistically it doesn’t happen. The stronger the conviction the greater the inner turmoil, but most young people today lack the conviction of their grandparents day, they are often just skeptical enough or moderate enough of religion to give up on it. The people who might need to hear a homily the most will not hear it. The people who need the renewing strength a sacrament can give will not receive it.

The tragedy is that very often (usually, I suppose) the children of the relationship are not going to church any more. Neither the children of the first relationship nor the newer children of the next relationship will see the inside of a church for a long time. The parents are alienated and the children are effectively lost.

Some (but not most) of these children will find Christ later, perhaps in some Protestant community. Then at the sundae social they will say “I was raised Catholic” when in fact they were not really … not properly raised nor catechized.

There must be millions of people like this in the USA, Brazil, Mexico etc.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Realistically it doesn’t happen.

The tragedy is that very often (usually, I suppose) the children of the relationship are not going to church any more. Neither the children of the first relationship nor the newer children of the next relationship will see the inside of a church for a long time. The parents are alienated and the children are effectively lost.

Some (but not most) of these children will find Christ later, perhaps in some Protestant community. Then at the sundae social they will say “I was raised Catholic” when in fact they were not really … not properly raised nor catechized.

There must be millions of people like this in the USA, Brazil, Mexico etc.

Definitely in the Philippines. And you are correct, many of those I know do have their children baptized. Well, it isn’t just because it is the Catholic thing to do, it is the Filipino thing to do. But they do stop going to Church because they do acknowledge that what they did is against Church teaching. Many become agnostic, some may still practice their Catholic faith to some degree but admittedly not to the extent that they should.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t know the stats for here too. The UGCC Eparchy which I am a part of, well, we don’t have the proper personal to handle such a tribunal. We’re a small particular Church, so we just work with RCAV.

Back in the Philippines, I don’t know how many seek annulments. Although I do know at least one example. The cultural beliefs surrounding marriage are a bad mix of traditional conservatism of Catholicism, and liberal Western thought. Most of those who separate from their spouses usually end up with a partner who is also separated from their spouse, they live together and have their own family without marriage. Because there is no civil divorce and there is no Church divorce. So people still know and follow Church teaching to a degree, that is no divorces and no remarriage. But unfortunately it feeds into a very liberal lifestyle of cohabiting non-spouses. And many become quite comfortable with that. I know a lot of people in this situation.

And this is where the ekonimia sets in. Would you rather have these two live together the rest of their lives in sin? Some people do become faithful and live a good life with their second partner. Divorce is a sin no matter what, thus penance for that. The second marriage? Ekonomia, as St. Paul has said, “it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Do you expect those who divorced to remain celibate the rest of their lives? That is a tall order. You’re essentially asking anyone with a failed marriage to become a monk.

My Aunt has been celibate her whole life. She is a Protestant. Just hasn’t been married.

To be celibate you don’t need to be a monk.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My Aunt has been celibate her whole life. She is a Protestant. Just hasn’t been married.

To be celibate you don’t need to be a monk.

Definitely! But it is a tall order for most people. That is the truth. Why force something on everybody just because a handful of people can do it?

 

[manualman]

In regards to translations and arguments about alternative words that COULD have been used, I find it helpful to just step back a moment and think about implications.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that one could allow a broad translation of ‘porneia’ that included adultery on a definition basis. But even if the word can be stretched, is it faithful to the message Jesus was saying?

Are you really prepared to have Jesus say “Let no man divide what God has joined. But if you really want to, just cheat on her first, then repent, then you’re free to re-marry because ‘porneia’ was involved in the marriage breakup.”

Somehow I don’t think so. This is just one of those hard sayings of Jesus. We moderns feel that we have a ‘right’ to bliss. When we come across a situation in which people’s mistakes lead to long term suffering, we immediately look for the escape hatch, indeed we DEMAND that there be an escape hatch. We call it an ‘injustice’ if there is none or label it as ‘unrealistic’ for anyone to live with the consequences of their mistakes.

Marriage is serious business. The fact that our culture has stopped believing this to be so is a large part of why we are such a mess. It may be true that we will hemorrage people to protestant communities that rationalize away divorce and remarriage for quite some time. But as our society itself continues to deteriorate, the witness of Grace in the lives of believers who have respected and obeyed Christ’s teaching on the matter will shine brighter. Catholicism has made the mistake of “keep 'em in the pews no matter what” before. It has to stop at the line of unfaithfulness to the teachings of Christ.

 

[Cavaradossi]

In regards to translations and arguments about alternative words that COULD have been used, I find it helpful to just step back a moment and think about implications.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that one could allow a broad translation of ‘porneia’ that included adultery on a definition basis. But even if the word can be stretched, is it faithful to the message Jesus was saying?

Are you really prepared to have Jesus say “Let no man divide what God has joined. But if you really want to, just cheat on her first, then repent, then you’re free to re-marry because ‘porneia’ was involved in the marriage breakup.”

That’s not how it works. The party guilty of fornication has no say in the dissolution of the marriage. The innocent party, while urged not to leave the other, is accounted to be blameless should this happen, because the act of fornication defiles the marital bond. The guilty party, if abandoned, can receive another chance after performing the penance for fornication, but the guilty party has no ability to choose to leave the innocent party.

Somehow I don’t think so. This is just one of those hard sayings of Jesus. We moderns feel that we have a ‘right’ to bliss. When we come across a situation in which peop mistakes lead to long term suffering, we immediately look for the escape hatch, indeed we DEMAND that there be an escape hatch. We call it an ‘injustice’ if there is none or label it as ‘unrealistic’ for anyone to live with the consequences of their mistakes.

Marriage is serious business. The fact that our culture has stopped believing this to be so is a large part of why we are such a mess. It may be true that we will hemorrage people to protestant communities that rationalize away divorce and remarriage for quite some time. But as our society itself continues to deteriorate, the witness of Grace in the lives of believers who have respected and obeyed Christ’s teaching on the matter will shine brighter. Catholicism has made the mistake of “keep 'em in the pews no matter what” before. It has to stop at the line of unfaithfulness to the teachings of Christ.

But what we think the Scriptures mean must be informed by the tradition. The quotations I provided are from fourth century saints, most especially from St. Basil, whose epistles 188 and 199 are concerning canon law and how it should be exercised and were themselves included into Eastern canon law in the late seventh century. Now what it really seems like you are attacking with all of this talk about responsibility is so-called ‘no-fault’ divorce, but this is not permissible canonically and never has been permissible.

 

[mardukm]

Yes many perversions, which is exactly what the meaning of porneia is. Porneia does not mean just unlawful, incestuous marriages, but is a broad term for sexual perversions.

Thanks for repeating what I already stated.

Therefore, you see, after this He presses the point without reserve, and builds up this fear as a bulwark, urging on the husband the great danger, if he do cast her out, in that he makes himself accountable for her adultery.

Thank you for quoting the text that perfectly proves my point.

In other words, do not look at a woman with lust, as you will put her into whoredom and give her husband cause to cast her out and cause her to be an adulterer.

Thank you for repeating the exact point I was making.

It is clear that St. John Chrysostom understands πορνεία not to mean an already invalid incestuous marriage but to mean any sexual perversion committed by the wife, for while μοιχέια is a narrow term, meaning a sexual relationship which pollutes a married woman, πορνεία (translated as fornication) is a broad term which encompasses illicit sexual relations which may not result in μοιχεία per se.

Thank you for defending the Catholic pov about the difference between porneia and moixeia.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm[/indent]
A quick glance at the Patrologia Graeca (volume 32, page 721), will reveal that the word translated as fornication is πορνείαν, and the word translated as adultery is μοιχείας.

Thanks for repeating the facts brother Manualman and I had already pointed out.

Again, if πορνεία meant an unlawful and incestuous marriage, how would this canon make sense?

Don’t really know what your point is here. Porneia covers a lot of perversions, which you admitted, so it certainly can include unlawful and incestuous marriage.

Surely it only makes sense if we admit that πορνείαν is a broader term than μοιχεία for while μοιχεία involves the defilement of a married woman, πορνεία does not.

Thank you again, for defending the Catholic position, and differentiating between the two.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for repeating what I already stated.

Thank you for quoting the text that perfectly proves my point.

Thank you for repeating the exact point I was making.

Thank you for defending the Catholic pov about the difference between porneia and moixeia.

Thanks for repeating the facts brother Manualman and I had already pointed out.

Don’t really know what your point is here. Porneia covers a lot of perversions, which you admitted, so it certainly can include unlawful and incestuous marriage.

Thank you again, for defending the Catholic position, and differentiating between the two.

It seems that you have run out of good and well-reasoned responses. Is not this sort of misrepresentation of my arguments unfair and childish? If you truly agree with my post, then you will be in agreement that all moicheia is porneia, but not all porneia is moicheia, since porneia, the broader term for all sexual perversions (you agree that it is such) encompasses the specific sexual perversion, adultery. In other wordss, adultery is very certainly grounds for a divorce according to Matthew 5:32, since adultery falls under the broad umbrella of sexual acts with another person which might be described as porneia. But you will argue, that Jesus’ choice of the word porneia instead of moicheia is meant to exclude the connotation of adultery. But this argument is not sound, for St. Basil’s use of the term to describe sexual behavior between a man and woman which could be adultery if the woman were married indicates that porneia is to moicheia as the general is to the specific. For he starts with an act that is porneia (a man having an extra-marital affair) and then goes on to write that such an act (one we already know to be called porneia), cannot be called moicheia, so long as it is done with an unmarried woman, which is grammatically equivalent to saying that an act of porneia could be called moicheia if done with a married woman. Now if you agree, then it is arbitrary and unsound to say that the Savior’s choice of the word porneia was meant to exclude moicheia, since far from excluding it, porneia being more general encompasses moicheia.

 

[TrueLight]

Now, now boys. Let’s play nice.

 

[manualman]

That’s not how it works. The party guilty of fornication has no say in the dissolution of the marriage. The innocent party, while urged not to leave the other, is accounted to be blameless should this happen, because the act of fornication defiles the marital bond. The guilty party, if abandoned, can receive another chance after performing the penance for fornication, but the guilty party has no ability to choose to leave the innocent party.

But you’ve fallen into the pit of forgetting what marriage IS in the first place here. If a sacramental marriage is one in which God joined the two together in a lifelong bond, except in the case of adultery, then the bond is BROKEN for both of them. You can’t have the ‘guilty’ party still bound in matrimony and the ‘wronged’ party free to remarry. That’s just nonsensical and seems to me, at least, to be a departure from recognition of what marriage really is and WHY it is a bond that can’t be broken. The only exceptions are cases where something prevented that bond from forming in the first place and a relationship of inherently perverse character fits that bill while later adultery in an initially valid marraige does not.

I’m not in an academic position to argue ancient patristics, but I’ve participated in such discussions enough to be satisfied that catholic interpretations tend to account for the entirety of Tradition while departing opinions seems to depend on isolated texts taken out of context.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But you’ve fallen into the pit of forgetting what marriage IS in the first place here. If a sacramental marriage is one in which God joined the two together in a lifelong bond, except in the case of adultery, then the bond is BROKEN for both of them. You can’t have the ‘guilty’ party still bound in matrimony and the ‘wronged’ party free to remarry. That’s just nonsensical and seems to me, at least, to be a departure from recognition of what marriage really is and WHY it is a bond that can’t be broken. The only exceptions are cases where something prevented that bond from forming in the first place and a relationship of inherently perverse character fits that bill while later adultery in an initially valid marraige does not.

I’m not in an academic position to argue ancient patristics, but I’ve participated in such discussions enough to be satisfied that catholic interpretations tend to account for the entirety of Tradition while departing opinions seems to depend on isolated texts taken out of context.

At this point, I suppose we’ll have to disagree so that we don’t wind up going around in crazy loops ad infinitum, but there’s no shame in that.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Definitely! But it is a tall order for most people. That is the truth. Why force something on everybody just because a handful of people can do it?

There isn’t much of an answer to that except to say, “Orders are Orders”. The Catholic Church has deemed that this is what Jesus’s words in the Gospel have meant-one marriage, no divorce.

As I have said, I endorse Cardinal Ratzinger’s plan so that remarried couples after divorce have the opportunity for reconciliation with the Church and can again receive the Blessed Sacrament

 

[TrueLight]

There isn’t much of an answer to that except to say, “Orders are Orders”. The Catholic Church has deemed that this is what Jesus’s words in the Gospel have meant-one marriage, no divorce.

As I have said, I endorse Cardinal Ratzinger’s plan so that remarried couples after divorce have the opportunity for reconciliation with the Church and can again receive the Blessed Sacrament

I don’t see how that would work without it seeming like more relaxing of the rules.

I suppose one could be not allowed to receive for a set time like maybe 10 years. That would be penance.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I suppose one could be not allowed to receive for a set time like maybe 10 years. That would be penance.

Something like that. Since the Eucharist is the summit of our faith, I don’t know if ten years is too long or not. Five years sounds more reasonable to me.

To me it is more appropriate that sinners return to the Sacrament sooner rather than later so that they can participate in the faith once again, as long as the penance is strict enough to convey the seriousness of the sin; there are worse sins that can be forgiven more quickly, like abortion, but since this sin is public and involves scandal of the entire Church it does seem proper that the penance be stricter so as to make it clear that the Church rules are very important and can’t be ignored because of mere whims.

So I’d go with five years as a solid number that conveys the seriousness of the sin but allows the couple to return to the Eucharist in a reasonable amount of time…

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

I see you are upset that your arguments are for naught. They don’t make a dent in the Catholic position.

It is rather incorrect to claim that all moicheia is porneia. If you marry someone, you profess to love her. But suppose you fall in love with someone else along the way. That is NOT a SEXUAL perversion. That is not porneia, but plain old moixeia (adultery). On the other hand, moixeia COULD be indicative of porneia. Specifically, if you are a sexual addict, and you marry just for the sake of sexual satisfaction, you will most likely commit moixeia, but the source of that moixeia is not love for another other than your wife, but rather the sexual perversion that is porneia (that is why St. Chrysostom assumes the woman guilty of porneia has relations with “many men”) So, to repeat, you are incorrect that all moicheia is porneia. Thus, adultery is not always grounds for divorce, but only that adultery that is due to a mind and heart geared towards lust (which is a sexual perversion - i.e., porneia).

Interestingly, this psychology of porneia (a mind geared simply towards the satisfaction of lust) is a possible grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church. If you are reading this, Truelight, this is a case where the concept of “immaturity” comes in (though this is not the only criteria that falls under the heading of “immaturity”). It cannot be doubted that many confuse lust with love, especially when people are young. A marriage based on lust is not a true marriage, IMO, and many young people enter marriage on those grounds. If later on, the couple becomes mature, and they realize they don’t really love each other, then that would be grounds for annulment. On the other hand, since Marriage provides Graces that can overcome lust/porneia, even marriages that begin in lust can end in real love. The Sacrament has worked its Grace, and I, for one, believe that, despite the “immaturity” evident at the time of Marriage, such a marriage is a true marriage and does not merit a decree of nullity. That’s where the grey area lies, and in such cases, I do think that annulment, if not properly and thoroughly investigated, would be nothing more than divorce under a different name.

Blessings,
Marduk

It seems that you have run out of good and well-reasoned responses. Is not this sort of misrepresentation of my arguments unfair and childish? If you truly agree with my post, then you will be in agreement that all moicheia is porneia, but not all porneia is moicheia, since porneia, the broader term for all sexual perversions (you agree that it is such) encompasses the specific sexual perversion, adultery. In other wordss, adultery is very certainly grounds for a divorce according to Matthew 5:32, since adultery falls under the broad umbrella of sexual acts with another person which might be described as porneia. But you will argue, that Jesus’ choice of the word porneia instead of moicheia is meant to exclude the connotation of adultery. But this argument is not sound, for St. Basil’s use of the term to describe sexual behavior between a man and woman which could be adultery if the woman were married indicates that porneia is to moicheia as the general is to the specific. For he starts with an act that is porneia (a man having an extra-marital affair) and then goes on to write that such an act (one we already know to be called porneia), cannot be called moicheia, so long as it is done with an unmarried woman, which is grammatically equivalent to saying that an act of porneia could be called moicheia if done with a married woman. Now if you agree, then it is arbitrary and unsound to say that the Savior’s choice of the word porneia was meant to exclude moicheia, since far from excluding it, porneia being more general encompasses moicheia.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see how that would work without it seeming like more relaxing of the rules.

It is not a relaxing of the rules, but only a mitigation of the punishment normally attached to the breaking of the rules. It’s very similar to the concept of oikonomia. On that point, many non-Orthodox accuse Orthodox of changing the divine law when it comes to divorce/remarriage. That is an utterly false misconception. Orthodox are not changing or diminishing the divine law, but simply mitigating the punishment normally associated with the breaking of the divine law. As brother Hesychios’ lengthy quotation from the Orthodox source demonstrates, Orthodox do believe in the divine law of the indissolubility of marriage. Orthodox do understand that second and third marriages fall short of the mark - which is why second and third marriages (unlike a first marriage) are penitential in character.

That does not solve all the issues between Catholics and Orthodox on this matter, but I hope it at least causes Catholics to not jump the gun and wrongly accuse Orthodox of disrespecting the divine law on divorce/remarriage.

I suppose one could be not allowed to receive for a set time like maybe 10 years. That would be penance.

That is comparable to the early Church’s praxis.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is not a relaxing of the rules, but only a mitigation of the punishment normally attached to the breaking of the rules. It’s very similar to the concept of oikonomia. On that point, many non-Orthodox accuse Orthodox of changing the divine law when it comes to divorce/remarriage. That is an utterly false misconception. Orthodox are not changing or diminishing the divine law, but simply mitigating the punishment normally associated with the breaking of the divine law. As brother Hesychios’ lengthy quotation from the Orthodox source demonstrates, Orthodox do believe in the divine law of the indissolubility of marriage. Orthodox do understand that second and third marriages fall short of the mark - which is why second and third marriages (unlike a first marriage) are penitential in character.

That does not solve all the issues between Catholics and Orthodox on this matter, but I hope it at least causes Catholics to not jump the gun and wrongly accuse Orthodox of disrespecting the divine law on divorce/remarriage.

That is comparable to the early Church’s praxis.

Blessings,
Marduk

If we’re talking about relaxing the rules, then we should ask why annulments are readily available today. I agree with your entire post Brother Marduk. Remarriage isn’t about relaxing the rules, but as an act of mercy for those who’s marriage have failed and yet cannot keep themselves from remarrying. As noted earlier, many people who knows that they cannot remarry in the Catholic Church ends up leaving the Church altogether. As long as strict guidelines are followed to ensure the person pays for the sin of dissolving the indissoluble.

I don’t see it necessarily as a great evil. I’ve seen people who do better in their second marriage. They are more faithful with their spouse. Perhaps the first marriage was just a victim of immaturity of the person.