Ecclesiastical Divorce and the Orthodox

[manualman]

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.

That’s precisely the catholic position. Some people appear to have been married, but really didn’t because their relationship simply was not one that could properly be defined as one that “God had joined.” If that non-marriage collapses, one (or both) of the persons involved repents and matures to eliminate that defect in character (assuming it was his) that prevented the first marriage, then his second attempt can indeed succeed spectacularly.

The catholic church provides an impartial mechanism for such wounded people to seek to find out what happened and have a moral assurance as to whether that relationship was flawed from the very beginning or not. If it was, then they CAN repent, grow and have another shot at having the sort of marriage relationship God intended man and woman to have. If the failed marriage was a result of later sins and the bond truly was a sacramental marriage then it is an oxymoron to speak of them sinning by ‘dissolving the indissoluble.’ You can’t do that any more than you can unbaptize a person. All that happens is that the bond is defiled when the persons involved pretend it is dissolved. Catholics are priviledged to have the marriage tribunals as a pastoral aide in making this discernment. Those who are unable to reconcile a failed, but valid marriage have a hard road to walk in life. But it is myopic to argue that God wouldn’t burden his people with such a trial. Read a church history book sometime if that’s your position. God sometimes asks hard things of his people. Ask Him why, because I don’t know.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s precisely the catholic position. Some people appear to have been married, but really didn’t because their relationship simply was not one that could properly be defined as one that “God had joined.” If that non-marriage collapses, one (or both) of the persons involved repents and matures to eliminate that defect in character (assuming it was his) that prevented the first marriage, then his second attempt can indeed succeed spectacularly.

Don’t take offense to the terminology I will use here, but I cannot come up with a more charitable way to put it. But I think this reasoning is a pathetic excuse. It is a divorce. The marriage was valid. Is one’s maturity an impediment to marriage? If they freely gave themselves to marriage, then it is a valid marriage. If they are immature to handle a marriage, that doesn’t change the fact that they entered into a valid marriage. To suddenly call it a non-marriage years later when everything breaks down even though they were free and happy the first few years is nothing but a lie. In cases like this, I like the Orthodox position more. At least they are honest. It is a divorce. Coming up with complex reasoning to justify a non-marriage is trivializing a Sacrament and overtly legalizing the faith.

The catholic church provides an impartial mechanism for such wounded people to seek to find out what happened and have a moral assurance as to whether that relationship was flawed from the very beginning or not.

Every relationship is flawed. Let us not fool ourselves here. The best marriages are not because they had a perfect relationship from day 1. It is because they grew with the relationship.

If it was, then they CAN repent, grow and have another shot at having the sort of marriage relationship God intended man and woman to have. If the failed marriage was a result of later sins and the bond truly was a sacramental marriage then it is an oxymoron to speak of them sinning by ‘dissolving the indissoluble.’ You can’t do that any more than you can unbaptize a person. All that happens is that the bond is defiled when the persons involved pretend it is dissolved. Catholics are priviledged to have the marriage tribunals as a pastoral aide in making this discernment. Those who are unable to reconcile a failed, but valid marriage have a hard road to walk in life. But it is myopic to argue that God wouldn’t burden his people with such a trial. Read a church history book sometime if that’s your position. God sometimes asks hard things of his people. Ask Him why, because I don’t know.

Well, I am not saying that remarriage should be an easy option for everyone. But we have to realize that many people cannot handle that hard walk. Why let the person burn in hell if we can bring God’s mercy to him/her? As I pointed out, many remarry anyway and leave the Church. If they can still remain faithful Christians despite being remarried, then we give them a better chance to enter heaven. Would we rather let these people face God with the sin of divorce? Or face God with the sin of divorce, apostasy, and a life unguided by the Church?

 

[manualman]

1. Don’t take offense to the terminology I will use here, but I cannot come up with a more charitable way to put it. But I think this reasoning is a pathetic excuse. It is a divorce. The marriage was valid. Is one’s maturity an impediment to marriage? If they freely gave themselves to marriage, then it is a valid marriage. If they are immature to handle a marriage, that doesn’t change the fact that they entered into a valid marriage. To suddenly call it a non-marriage years later when everything breaks down even though they were free and happy the first few years is nothing but a lie. In cases like this, I like the Orthodox position more. At least they are honest. It is a divorce. Coming up with complex reasoning to justify a non-marriage is trivializing a Sacrament and overtly legalizing the faith.
2. Every relationship is flawed. Let us not fool ourselves here. The best marriages are not because they had a perfect relationship from day 1. It is because they grew with the relationship.
3. Well, I am not saying that remarriage should be an easy option for everyone. But we have to realize that many people cannot handle that hard walk. Why let the person burn in hell if we can bring God’s mercy to him/her? As I pointed out, many remarry anyway and leave the Church. If they can still remain faithful Christians despite being remarried, then we give them a better chance to enter heaven. Would we rather let these people face God with the sin of divorce? Or face God with the sin of divorce, apostasy, and a life unguided by the Church?

1. I like blunt, it gets to the point. Your argument is that the difference betwen people who shack up and those who get married is limited to a white dress, a church building, a certificate and a priest, eh? Sorry, but that’s rather a lot more pathetic than the catholic argument. Marriage is a deep, sacred and permanent union that requires the profound and free consent as well as an understanding of what they are consenting TO. No surprise to me that so many are eligible for annullments today when most Americans could probably not even articulate a valid definition for marriage. The scandal of the catholic church is NOT that we give annullments out too freely, but that we enable so many people to delude themselves into believing they are beginning a sacramental marriage. Tribunals can become excessively legalistic, especially when the ‘faithful’ are more interested in gaming the system than receiving pastoral care. But the principles are soundly based on Jesus’ words, which CLEARLY militate against the possibility of divorce and remarriage. What’s pathetic is ignoring those words because they are hard. And I have no defense against a charge that we’re pathetic for enabling people to deceive themselves that they are sacramentally married. For a semi-lighthearted view here is the part-humor, part despair musings of a priest in the trenches on the topic: rev-know-it-all.com/2009/2009—10-04.html
2. True, nobody on earth today is perfect. But there’s a LOT of breathing room between perfection and “free, profound and informed consent.”
3. Your reasoning here suggests that we make the rules rather than that we’ve received them. That’s not the high reputation I’ve heard of the EO in general in regards to the meticulous way in which Tradition has been preserved. We must be faithful to what Jesus actually SAID. Yours is the sort of rationalization that leads to ‘gay marriage.’ Seriously, just repeat the lines you said with gay substituted for remarriage. See the similarity? Yes, we have to be pastorally sensitive. Yes, we have to reassure people that there is always a path to repentance and healing. No, we can never attempt to widen that path by calling an evil a good so as to remove the stone that makes men stumble and the rock that makes them fall. Yes, we lose a lot of people over this issue. Jesus lost a lot over the Eucharist too, but he didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear to keep them. There is a line of truth that you can’t cross in order to be pastoral. Adultery isn’t the uber-sin that can’t be forgiven. Nobody is consigning anybody to hell over this, not me, certainly not the Church. But we also recognize that we do nobody a favor in telling them that their sins are something good. Instead we focus on helping them to heal from them and grow beyond them.

 

[TrueLight]

Is one’s maturity an impediment to marriage? If they freely gave themselves to marriage, then it is a valid marriage. If they are immature to handle a marriage, that doesn’t change the fact that they entered into a valid marriage. To suddenly call it a non-marriage years later when everything breaks down even though they were free and happy the first few years is nothing but a lie.

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. I like blunt, it gets to the point. Your argument is that the difference betwen people who shack up and those who get married is limited to a white dress, a church building, a certificate and a priest, eh? Sorry, but that’s rather a lot more pathetic than the catholic argument.

That is not my argument. Where did you get that? Marriage is more than the legal mumbojumbo we have.

Marriage is a deep, sacred and permanent union that requires the profound and free consent as well as an understanding of what they are consenting TO. No surprise to me that so many are eligible for annullments today when most Americans could probably not even articulate a valid definition for marriage.

By this standards, 99% of people who get married do not enter a valid marriage. THAT is the problem. But marriage isn’t supposed to be a cerebral affair. Marriage, like faith, is an experience. No one who enters into marriage knows what marriage is about fully unless one experiences marriage. But that is only possible if one is previously marriage. I’ve read so-called marriage advice online and I can say that these people are probably saying something about their marriage, but they know nothing about my marriage. Each marriage is unique as every person is unique. The dynamics of two unique people will always be unique from the dynamics of other couples. By your reasoning here, someone saying, “wait a minute, this is not what I expected a marriage to be” has an annulable marriage. That is just wrong in so many levels.

The scandal of the catholic church is NOT that we give annullments out too freely, but that we enable so many people to delude themselves into believing they are beginning a sacramental marriage.

No, the scandal is how trivialized what a wedding actually is that lawyers can jump hoops to prove something real is actually invalid. A mystery is suddenly relegated into a battle of the minds. The sanctity of marriage is put in the hands of lawyers.

Tribunals can become excessively legalistic, especially when the ‘faithful’ are more interested in gaming the system than receiving pastoral care. But the principles are soundly based on Jesus’ words, which CLEARLY militate against the possibility of divorce and remarriage. What’s pathetic is ignoring those words because they are hard. And I have no defense against a charge that we’re pathetic for enabling people to deceive themselves that they are sacramentally married. For a semi-lighthearted view here is the part-humor, part despair musings of a priest in the trenches on the topic: rev-know-it-all.com/2009/2009—10-04.html

Nobody is ignoring those words because they are hard. But don’t you find it sad that a Sacrament is something that one can argue about? Honestly, how many people who are seeking annulments actually

1. True, nobody on earth today is perfect. But there’s a LOT of breathing room between perfection and “free, profound and informed consent.”

Sorry but this is delusional. Also, where did Jesus say that this is a requirement to marriage? Unless you were drunk or drugged when you got married, or you were blackmailed or literally had a gun against your head, you gave free consent.

Even in secular law, if you didn’t read the contract before you signed, that does not mean you can nullify the contract. That does not void the contract. There is such a thing as due diligence and if you didn’t do your due diligence, then it is your fault. It does not nullify the contract. Same for marriage, if you didn’t prepare yourself for marriage and didn’t understand fully what marriage is, it doesn’t nullify the marriage.

1. Your reasoning here suggests that we make the rules rather than that we’ve received them.

We did make the rules. Can you point me to a First Millennium source that describes marriage the way you just did or the way the Church does today?

That’s not the high reputation I’ve heard of the EO in general in regards to the meticulous way in which Tradition has been preserved. We must be faithful to what Jesus actually SAID.

Can you point me to where Jesus said that marriage must be “free, profound and informed consent?”

Yours is the sort of rationalization that leads to ‘gay marriage.’ Seriously, just repeat the lines you said with gay substituted for remarriage. See the similarity?

No, I do not. Remarriage doesn’t change what marriage is.

Yes, we have to be pastorally sensitive. Yes, we have to reassure people that there is always a path to repentance and healing. No, we can never attempt to widen that path by calling an evil a good so as to remove the stone that makes men stumble and the rock that makes them fall. Yes, we lose a lot of people over this issue. Jesus lost a lot over the Eucharist too, but he didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear to keep them. There is a line of truth that you can’t cross in order to be pastoral. Adultery isn’t the uber-sin that can’t be forgiven. Nobody is consigning anybody to hell over this, not me, certainly not the Church. But we also recognize that we do nobody a favor in telling them that their sins are something good. Instead we focus on helping them to heal from them and grow beyond them.

I don’t entirely disagree with what you said, but I think it is hypocritical with how annulments are handled in the Catholic Church today. In fact, I have heard a Catholic priest talk about annulments the same way an Orthodox priest would talk about ecclesiastical divorce. “For the spiritual good of the person.”

And how can we focus on helping them heal if we bar them from marriage? As St. Paul said, for those who can’t remain celibate, it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hm, a blunt discussion, huh?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Charity please

 

[manualman]

1. That is not my argument. Where did you get that? Marriage is more than the legal mumbojumbo we have.

By this standards, 99% of people who get married do not enter a valid marriage. THAT is the problem. But marriage isn’t supposed to be a cerebral affair. Marriage, like faith, is an experience. No one who enters into marriage knows what marriage is about fully unless one experiences marriage. But that is only possible if one is previously marriage. I’ve read so-called marriage advice online and I can say that these people are probably saying something about their marriage, but they know nothing about my marriage. Each marriage is unique as every person is unique. The dynamics of two unique people will always be unique from the dynamics of other couples. By your reasoning here, someone saying, “wait a minute, this is not what I expected a marriage to be” has an annulable marriage. That is just wrong in so many levels.
…
Sorry but this is delusional. Also, where did Jesus say that this is a requirement to marriage? Unless you were drunk or drugged when you got married, or you were blackmailed or literally had a gun against your head, you gave free consent.

Catholics simply recognize that Jesus did NOT say that any man and woman who said “I do” in front of a rabbi were “joined by God.” He conspicuously left undefined what constitutes a true marriage, one in which the couple is truly “joined by God.” There’s been a lot of reflection on that over the centuries. I’ve known couples that simply shacked up happily for a few years before breaking up, even some that had kids. My point above is that the difference between those people and a “married” couple must NOT be assumed to be nothing more than the white dress, ceremony, priest and mouthed words “I do.” That couple simply has to know what it is they are consenting to and has to be fully willing to give that consent. Lack of that is precisely why air-headed celebrities constantly marry and divorce. They clearly have no concept of what marriage IS in the first place, so have no capacity to consent to it. Regardless of whether they say “I do” in front of a priest or an Elvis impersonator, they aren’t giving valid consent. And it sadly isn’t limited to celebrities by a long shot.

Your posts suggest that you have a shallow understanding of the marriage bond, one something akin to a magic wand waved over the couple at a marriage ceremony. It is nothing of the sort. The couple confects the sacrament on one another by truly consenting to what marriage IS or there is no sacrament there, regardless of the appearance of things.

I still say you’re focusing on the wrong scandal. It should be no suprise that so many nominal catholics ‘marry’ then divorce, then remarry. Most of them can’t tell you what Pentecost is, what transubstantiation is, what happens at baptism or why they need to confess to a priest either. Why be surprised that so many are too ignorant to give full consent to marriage? The scandal is that the Church enables them to pretend to the sacrament even when they are so clearly unready to enter into it. We should not permit church weddings when the couple has no regular attendance at mass, it should not be permitted when one or both readily admits being closed to children, and a host of other blatant indicators that often don’t get explored until the annullment application is submitted. Instead we should be telling these people that catholic marriage is a holy sacrament in which the two agree to sacrifice themselves for the other and for Christ, not a pageantry tradition and photo op. If they just want a big party and a socially respectable license to live together, well, there’s an Elvis impersonator up the street who does that quite well. OK, there’s probably a more pastoral way than that, but what I said would merely be the equal and opposite error of what is generaly done today: total enabling of sham marriages.

I get the sense that we aren’t going to convince each other! Tell you what we can probably agree on: you keep reading that Matthew passage and so will I. God will eventually break through to the one or both of us that is interpreting it wrong. Deal?

 

[manualman]

No, I do not. Remarriage doesn’t change what marriage is.

Sorry, I just can’t let this one pass. Of COURSE it does! Marriage is a PERMANENT, LIFELONG bond of self-sacrificial love which is by its very nature the fullness of the way humanity was created in the image and likeness of God such that the shared love is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life.

You DEVASTATE that definition when you add in “unless you stop getting along, split irreconcilably and want to try again with somebody else” at the end! Come on!

 

[Hesychios]

… It should be no suprise that so many nominal catholics ‘marry’ then divorce, then remarry. Most of them can’t tell you what Pentecost is, what transubstantiation is, what happens at baptism or why they need to confess to a priest either.

I can agree with your observations.

…
Why be surprised that so many are too ignorant to give full consent to marriage?

I can’t accept that so many are so stupid. I think they know what a marriage is, although most people, Catholics and Non-Catholics alike, are not prepared for how hard a monogamous (and btw chaste) relationship is. It requires hard dedicated affort.

This is a societal problem, not a Catholic one.

Same for parenthood. I am quite convinced that even after all the warnings and coaching young people will get from people who care about them, most people are quite unprepared for the reality of parenthood. It can be an enormous shock in the beginning.

This doe not nullify their parenthood however, it is real and valid, even when poorly executed. It remains real and obligatory even after the state takes their kids away, so lack of preparedness is no excuse.

Pretending that one isn’t married because one was “not emotionally mature” at the time of the commitment is like pretending one is not really a parent. It doesn’t work, no one is fooled by it, especially after several years of co-habitation, or enough time to bring on some young ones.

 

[manualman]

I can agree with your observations.
I can’t accept that so many are so stupid. I think they know what a marriage is, although most people, Catholics and Non-Catholics alike, are not prepared for how hard a monogamous (and btw chaste) relationship is. It requires hard dedicated affort.

This is a societal problem, not a Catholic one.

I think that’s potentially a valid criticism too. Nobody I’m aware of pretends that marriage tribunals enjoy infallibility and there are indications that the tribunals in the US are rather on the loose side (for example, the Roman Rota overturns many appeals made to it from US cases). “I was young” is not defective consent, I’ll agree. I’m not defending the full status quo, just the principle that underlies it: not all who say “I do” truly enter into a sacramental union.

I might also agree to criticisms not yet offered that the catholic tribunal process is excessively focused on the circumstances on the wedding day and might be ignoring evidence of completed consent down the road that ‘activates’ so to speak the Grace of the sacrament that lay latent for a time. It’s the couple, after all, that confect the sacrament.

But on the other hand look at how rapidly this culture is being talked into accepting ‘gay marriage.’ Anybody with a full and christian understanding of what marriage IS can’t for a second fall for that con job. But millions of Americans are. I wonder if that by itself means they don’t adequately comprehend what they are consenting to.

And btw, the above is just my amatuer musings, not to be given any more weight than that! I certainly don’t speak for the church…

H, do you have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the Eastern perspective of ‘ecclesiastical divorce?’ You’ve made great (name removed by moderator)ut in the past and if you can help me see this as something other than a dodge of Jesus’ teaching I’d appreciate it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

H, do you have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the Eastern perspective of ‘ecclesiastical divorce?’ You’ve made great (name removed by moderator)ut in the past and if you can help me see this as something other than a dodge of Jesus’ teaching I’d appreciate it.

I don’t understand why the allowance for divorce in the case of a marriage which is completely irreparable is a dodging of Jesus’ teachings while allowing people who hold a grudge to commune or allowing people to take oaths civilly (even the pope takes an oath upon ordination if I recall) to commune is not. Why is it that of all the verses in Matthew 5, verse 32 is the only verse which Jesus meant literally for us to follow with no exceptions, while all of the other verses can simply be thrown away, but God forbid we ever make an exception to verse 32? This insistence that those who have divorced and remarried can never again be allowed to commune unless they live as brother and sister, while at the same time people who hold grudges against their brethren, who take oaths, who defend themselves rather than turning the other cheek, who make lawsuits, or who curse their enemies can be given a free pass is nuts, to be frank. Surely, it is deceptive to say that allowing for divorce to occur in certain circumstances is somehow disobeying the spirit of what was said, while allowing for all of the other things is not.

 

[Hesychios]

…
H, do you have any (name removed by moderator)ut on the Eastern perspective of ‘ecclesiastical divorce?’ You’ve made great (name removed by moderator)ut in the past and if you can help me see this as something other than a dodge of Jesus’ teaching I’d appreciate it.

I am quite in agreement with the comments of my brother above. I don’t know if any of that will help you understand it, but the church has been struggling with this issue from actually about the beginning.

The matter of ecclesiastical divorce is one that predates the schism, so for any who might claim that the Catholic church never had such a thing they are not correct.

Further, of all the horrible things and even silly claims Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederic made against the Greek Catholics in 1054AD, this very real practice (sure ammunition for the attack) did not even come up as an issue.

I suppose what made my mind about it was after witnessing the carnage in modern society of families both torn apart and alienated from the church when they needed it the most. There is certainly a lost generation (or two or three) encompassing millions of fallen away and unchurched former Catholics and their descendants. Some of these persons were close to me.

Forgiving the contrite and helping them start over, plugged in to the church and her sacraments, can help turn this situation around, and more of these people could be at Mass or divine liturgy listening to much needed homilies and receiving spiritual strength in the sacraments. There must be a good reason for bishops to be able to bind and loose, and this is not a new (read: liberal) practice in the east, but very old and time tested.

 

[TrueLight]

The matter of ecclesiastical divorce is one that predates the schism, so for any who might claim that the Catholic church never had such a thing they are not correct.

Hey Hesychios,

Was it practiced at all in the West before the schism? Have any references?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Catholics simply recognize that Jesus did NOT say that any man and woman who said “I do” in front of a rabbi were “joined by God.”

Definitely. The state can define what marriage is, other religions can define for them what marriage is, it doesn’t affect or change what a Sacramental marriage is in the Church.

He conspicuously left undefined what constitutes a true marriage, one in which the couple is truly “joined by God.”

Definitely! So I don’t know why you were claiming earlier that we are redefining what Jesus instituted when the details are something that the Church decided later on. You will find that this is true for all Sacraments.

There’s been a lot of reflection on that over the centuries. I’ve known couples that simply shacked up happily for a few years before breaking up, even some that had kids. My point above is that the difference between those people and a “married” couple must NOT be assumed to be nothing more than the white dress, ceremony, priest and mouthed words “I do.” That couple simply has to know what it is they are consenting to and has to be fully willing to give that consent.

Yes. But again we have trivialized what “has to know” is. When two people are getting married, they are getting married. I don’t know how complicated it has to be. You know you two are coming together and be together for the rest of your lives. So why are there so many annulments then? How complicated can it be to know what they are getting into? I think Hesychios already provided a good explanation for this.

Lack of that is precisely why air-headed celebrities constantly marry and divorce.

No. It is not a lack of knowing what a marriage is. They do know what a marriage is. They get divorced and remarried because they can. If the desire for divorce constitute lack of knowledge of what marriage is (surely if you know that a marriage is for life then you wouldn’t seek divorce in the first place) then everyone who seeks a divorce is qualified for annulment. But that doesn’t make sense.

They clearly have no concept of what marriage IS in the first place, so have no capacity to consent to it. Regardless of whether they say “I do” in front of a priest or an Elvis impersonator, they aren’t giving valid consent. And it sadly isn’t limited to celebrities by a long shot.

So unless you get a doctorate degree in Marriage Theology you will not get a valid marriage?

Your posts suggest that you have a shallow understanding of the marriage bond, one something akin to a magic wand waved over the couple at a marriage ceremony. It is nothing of the sort. The couple confects the sacrament on one another by truly consenting to what marriage IS or there is no sacrament there, regardless of the appearance of things.

Sorry, but I think it is you who have a fanciful high standard of what marriage is. Celebrities do freely give themselves for marriage and if it was in front of a Catholic priest, then it is a valid marriage. Barring any Britney Spears drunken Vegas marriages, none of these marriages are null and void. When they go in front of the altar and give their vows freely, it is a valid marriage. It is that simple.

I still say you’re focusing on the wrong scandal. It should be no suprise that so many nominal catholics ‘marry’ then divorce, then remarry. Most of them can’t tell you what Pentecost is, what transubstantiation is, what happens at baptism or why they need to confess to a priest either. Why be surprised that so many are too ignorant to give full consent to marriage?

Again, you are saying that one has to have a doctorate in Theology to qualify for marriage. It means 99% of us “married” are living in sin right now. That is not true and that is a false understanding of what the West has defined as marriage.

The scandal is that the Church enables them to pretend to the sacrament even when they are so clearly unready to enter into it. We should not permit church weddings when the couple has no regular attendance at mass, it should not be permitted when one or both readily admits being closed to children, and a host of other blatant indicators that often don’t get explored until the annullment application is submitted. Instead we should be telling these people that catholic marriage is a holy sacrament in which the two agree to sacrifice themselves for the other and for Christ, not a pageantry tradition and photo op. If they just want a big party and a socially respectable license to live together, well, there’s an Elvis impersonator up the street who does that quite well. OK, there’s probably a more pastoral way than that, but what I said would merely be the equal and opposite error of what is generaly done today: total enabling of sham marriages.

The problem is a lot of people who get annulments still went through a proper marriage prep and do attend Mass at least once a week. So what is the excuse there now?

I get the sense that we aren’t going to convince each other! Tell you what we can probably agree on: you keep reading that Matthew passage and so will I. God will eventually break through to the one or both of us that is interpreting it wrong. Deal?

I think you need to start by reading exactly what the West teaches about marriage. Because you seem to have such a lofty ideal about what it is. I will admit I myself am trying to understand it, but I am sure how you painted it in your post is not accurate.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I don’t understand why the allowance for divorce in the case of a marriage which is completely irreparable is a dodging of Jesus’ teachings while allowing people who hold a grudge to commune or allowing people to take oaths civilly (even the pope takes an oath upon ordination if I recall) to commune is not. Why is it that of all the verses in Matthew 5, verse 32 is the only verse which Jesus meant literally for us to follow with no exceptions, while all of the other verses can simply be thrown away, but God forbid we ever make an exception to verse 32? This insistence that those who have divorced and remarried can never again be allowed to commune unless they live as brother and sister, while at the same time people who hold grudges against their brethren, who take oaths, who defend themselves rather than turning the other cheek, who make lawsuits, or who curse their enemies can be given a free pass is nuts, to be frank. Surely, it is deceptive to say that allowing for divorce to occur in certain circumstances is somehow disobeying the spirit of what was said, while allowing for all of the other things is not.

Amen. Not to mention the circumstances of adultery or physical and emotional abuse that occur in some marriages. That is the problem with this thread so far. It is being portrayed as if the only type of divorces that ever take place are “we’re just not getting along anymore” type of instances.

The gospel being absent is a problem, too.

 

[manualman]

Interesting! What I think I am hearing is that the EO interpret Jesus words as being a Hebrew hyperbole, similar to “call no man your father” rather than a straight up moral teaching. I’m not convinced, but it IS something to hand your hat on, at least. I appreciate the elaborations, thanks.

Speaking of hyperoble, there’s this:

Again, you are saying that one has to have a doctorate in Theology to qualify for marriage. It means 99% of us “married” are living in sin right now. That is not true and that is a false understanding of what the West has defined as marriage.

My formal catholic education stopped in 8th grade. I’ve never EVER had a theology or philosophy class. The ignorance that is out there in today’s laity is a result of apathy and lack of faith, not any particularly grueling academic demands in understanding the doctrines. And yes, I do believe that when people are guilty of negligent ignorance, they suffer consequences for it. Do I agree that it’s 99%? No. But it’s a much larger number than it should be.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Interesting! What I think I am hearing is that the EO interpret Jesus words as being a Hebrew hyperbole, similar to “call no man your father” rather than a straight up moral teaching. I’m not convinced, but it IS something to hand your hat on, at least. I appreciate the elaborations, thanks.

It’s not even really about hyperbole. We do believe that Jesus’ demand for us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect was an actual command, for example. But there is a recognition that this is not entirely possible yet. Sure, it would be ideal that no man should ever curse his enemy, defend himself with violence, take grievances to court; that no widow should ever remarry; that no man should ever look at another man’s wife with lust and make her an adulterer; or that no marriage should ever be broken. But once the damage is done and it cannot be repaired, what then can be done but to forgive those who have committed these sins and give them another chance?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It’s not even really about hyperbole. We do believe that Jesus’ demand for us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect was an actual command, for example. But there is a recognition that this is not entirely possible yet. Sure, it would be ideal that no man should ever curse his enemy, defend himself with violence, take grievances to court; that no widow should ever remarry; that no man should ever look at another man’s wife with lust and make her an adulterer; or that no marriage should ever be broken. But once the damage is done and it cannot be repaired, what then can be done but to forgive those who have committed these sins and give them another chance?

And I think this could be theoretically defensible as long as the marriages following the original are not considered Sacramental; instead they must be seen as inferior, “second chance” marriages.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s ideas attempt a synthesis…remarriage is still not permitted, but if it’s done then the people who marry should be forgiven after suitable penance.

I actually think both concepts are at least sensible, and I don’t know which one I prefer. But I think the Latin concept of remarriage is extremely flawed and this is one area I hope the Latins move Eastern on.

 

[manualman]

It’s not even really about hyperbole. We do believe that Jesus’ demand for us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect was an actual command, for example. But there is a recognition that this is not entirely possible yet. Sure, it would be ideal that no man should ever curse his enemy, defend himself with violence, take grievances to court; that no widow should ever remarry; that no man should ever look at another man’s wife with lust and make her an adulterer; or that no marriage should ever be broken. But once the damage is done and it cannot be repaired, what then can be done but to forgive those who have committed these sins and give them another chance?

You sounded more convincing when I thought you were describing hyperbole.

Cursing is something done once that can be repented of (thank goodness!). Same for an act of violence or a lawsuit or a singular event of lust (widow remarry, huh???).

I don’t think you can argue that remarriage is the same because remarriage is something the person CONTINUES to do unrepentantly. Remember, the sin is not to attempt marriage and fail at it (especially if it is primarily the spouse’s fault that the marriage ends - say adultery). The sin is to violate that marriage covenant by taking a second-try wife. Whether you are right about it being acceptable in some circumstances or not, you have to admit that such a thing is utterly different than individual sinful acts of the will that are in the past and repented of. Those other examples of of a completely different moral substance than remarriage which is an act of the will that is perpetuated.

Thanks for the discussion though. I at least have a sense of where y’all come from on the issue even though I can’t agree with the reasoning. That’s more than I started with.