Economia

[dvdjs]

Here’s an interesting link…

books.google.com/books?id=xdAUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

…that looks at marriage and divorce in the late nineteenth and early 20th century - at point in time at which there was substantial codification of practices, but before the onslaught of secularization, at least in the East. In particular, in most predominantly Orthodox countries there was still a symphonic coherence of state and ecclesiastical laws - explicit in the law. What you find is that failure to respect impediments against marriage provide grounds for absolute annulment or for annulment upon complaint. Grounds include lack of consent. Arranged marriages do not, of course, necessarily imply lack of consent. There were very few annulments; there were more divorces but they were rare - 1 per 1000 marriages eg in Austria Hungary at that time. I think that numbers were similar in my childhood in the US - at least it seemed that way from the real scandal that accompanied rumors of a failing marriage.

I remain curious about two aspects of this discussion:

1. In places like Austria-Hungary, as laws were being codified with allowance for divergent practices of different religious groups, did different laws apply to Greek Catholics Roman Catholics?
2. As practices became more and more lax in the EP world, did we hold to earlier traditions or did we also become equally lax?

Perhaps the data are too sparse esp in little places like the Carpatho-Rus. Maybe we ought to suspend judgment on who foisted and trampled what, until we have a historical basis for making claims about what our practice really was and when and how it changed.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a good thread from Byzcath that addresses some of the questions raised here and also has the money quote (pg 3) from Archbishop Elias Zoghby, A Voice from the Byzantine East, R. Bernard trans., (Newton, MA: Eparchy of Newton, 1992), pp. 163-169.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/341958/1

What seems to be missing from Archbishop Zoghby’s comment is the clear distinction between contemporary EO practice and the teachings of the Fathers. Presently, divorce is permitted even beyond the cases of adultery. And the remarriage of divorced persons is celebrated in a manner almost identical to a first marriage - at least according to priests who are performing these services. What the father allowed is very different: the first marriage is indissoluble; a person who contracts a civil divorce and a subsequent civil marriage, after a period of some years of excommunication, and showing fruits of repentance, is allowed to to come back to communion. No re-marriage in the church; as the first marriage is still recognized as indissoluble. This is huge economy. How would it fly today? I think that as compassionate as it seems to the Archbishop, it would invite even more cynicism than the abuse of annulments.

 

[5Loaves]

We recently had a thread here in the EC section Catholic and Orthodox views on marriage. I’m not sure how much that and the excellent Byzcath thread, thank you dvdjs, actually address the question OP asked re economia in the ECCs.

As for the application of economia to the specific question of marriage I’d be interested in any first hand reports of ECs who have gone through the process of seeking marriage in an ECC after a previous marriage to know if there is any appreciable difference in the process they experienced as compared with the process the Latin Church has for a decree of nullity.

I’ve heard Latin Catholics say “dispensation” is economia in the Latin Church. I see something shared there. But in the way it plays out, not really the same, as with much East and West.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually I’ve heard an RC priest talk to the annulment process and referred to considerations which closely resembled economia (in my limited understanding of it). His example were two non-Catholic or non-Christians who are converting, they’re married to one another but both were married before and has divorced and remarried. He said the Church may grant them annulment of the previous marriage for the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage. Sounds like economia to me.

 

[5Loaves]

Actually I’ve heard an RC priest talk to the annulment process and referred to considerations which closely resembled economia (in my limited understanding of it). His example were two non-Catholic or non-Christians who are converting, they’re married to one another but both were married before and has divorced and remarried. He said the Church may grant them annulment of the previous marriage for the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage. Sounds like economia to me.

If he thinks “the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage” is a basis for declaring a marriage null in the Latin Church he’s in for a rude awakening as are those to whom he would give such pastoral advise. And I fail to understand why his version of this “economia” is limited to non-Catholics, why he would not have it offered to Catholics as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If he thinks “the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage” is a basis for declaring a marriage null in the Latin Church he’s in for a rude awakening as are those to whom he would give such pastoral advise. And I fail to understand why his version of this “economia” is limited to non-Catholics, why he would not have it offered to Catholics as well.

Because they don’t have the Catholic understanding of marriage before coming into the Church.

 

[mardukm]

In a way I wouldn’t be surprised since from the Middle East like Jerusalem, arranged marriages have been pretty much the norm even at the time of Jesus, and in some cases until today. If they take their understanding of marriage from that, then I can understand why free consent is not part of what makes the Sacrament/Mystery valid.

Well, no we don’t. The Oriental Orthodox Churches (the primary Churches in the Middle East) fully recognize that free consent is part of what makes the Sacrament valid, and constitutes one of the conditions for the granting of an annulment in the OO Churches. Interestingly, the Oriental Tradition also possess the same understanding on the minister of marriage as the Easterns - namely, it is the priest, not the couple.

As I’ve always stated, the OO in so many ways are the via media between the Latins and Easterns (I guess like the Anglicans are the via media between the Catholics and the Protestants ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I did a little searching into the issues last night and I think I can clear up one point of confusion with regards to economia when applied to marriage,divorce and remarriage. DVDJS explicitly hit upon a suspicion of mine, and I’m grateful he did because I believe that this has been what’s been causing some confusion and perhaps some tension. It seems that up until now, when referring to divorce and remarriage, we’ve been talking about those who were married in the Church seeking a civil divorce and then being permitted by the Church to remarry. Such is not the case in Orthodoxy, according to Met. Kallistos Ware in “The Orthodox Church”. The divorce is granted by the Church, not by the state. “From the point of view of Orthodox theology a divorce granted by the State in the civil courts is not sufficient. Remarriage in church is only possible if the Church authorities have themselves granted a divorce.” (pg. 295) It would seem, therefore, to be a rough Eastern/Byzantine equivalent to the Latin annulment. The theology behind it are different, though. In the West, with its emphasis on the role of the couple in marrying each other, the tendency is to look for impediments to marriage at the moment the union was contracted. In the Byzantine East, however, with its emphasis on the role of the priest in marrying the couple, the tendency is to focus on the breakdown of the marriage relationship brought about by human weakness and sinfulness. Met. Kallistos does go on to say that a strict following of the Canons of the Orthodox Church only permits divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery. In practice, however, it is also granted for other reasons. Likewise, if one were to strictly follow the Canons, the ceremony for a second (or third) marriage omits much of the more joyful and celebratory aspects of the wedding ceremony and replaces them with more penitential prayers and hymns. But again in practice this is rarely done.

I hope this helps in clearing up some of the issues that have been brought up (probably on account of my own confusion on the matter. )

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

With regards to the situation of Greek Catholics in the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the time of reunion to the turn of the 20th Century, I would hardly look to them for authentic Byzantine praxis at that time. Almost from the earliest moment of reunion the process of Latinization began. I do not condemn them for it. Geographically the Ukrainians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Romanians, and all the other Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe were in an awkward position between their Orthodox roots and an almost rabid Roman Catholicism that was intent on defending itself from Protestantism, and therefore held anything that was not explicitly “Roman” in a great amount of suspicion. Politically they were situated between countries whose rulers were Roman Catholic, and whose privileges were given only to Roman Catholics (non-Roman Catholics being held in high suspicion and contempt), and countries whose rulers were Orthodox, and therefore held Eastern Catholics in complete disregard and sometimes outright contempt. To “prove” their Catholicity in the face of such a situation they often adopted much of Latin praxis, theology, spirituality, etc. This was reinforced by the fact that the young men who sought ordination to the priesthood were sent to Roman seminaries, where they received a Roman education, and often became bedazzled by Roman pageantry, scholarship, ritual, etc. Authentic Byzantine theology, praxis, ritual, etc. more often than not fell by the wayside and has only been in the process of recovery since the mid 1940s. That recovery itself was slowed thanks to the Communist Regime.

I would personally be more curious to find out what the practice of Orthodoxy was at the above established time period. Perhaps a study of the practice of the Melkites from the time leading up to the reunion of the Melkites to the present might also shed some light on our questions. Where we would find such information, however, is beyond me. I wonder of Kyr Nicholas Samra has any info he’d be willing to share.

 

[5Loaves]

Because they don’t have the Catholic understanding of marriage before coming into the Church.

A “Catholic understanding of marriage before coming into the Church” has nothing to do with the validity of marriage for non-Catholics. Canonically, every marriage is presumed valid until it is proven otherwise. This is Latin Church marriage 101. I don’t know where that priest got any different ideas about it. The marriage may be sacramental, as with two Baptized Christians, or natural as with two unbaptized persons. No tribunal of the Latin Church will accept an application for the determination of a decree of nullity until the couple, Catholic or non-Catholic, have completed a civil divorce.

If, unrelated to what you are calling economia in this priest’s example, he instead meant that it might be easier for a tribunal to find impediments at the time of the marriage vows in a marriage between two non-Catholics, impediments which contradict “the Catholic understanding of marriage”, for example they planned to never have children, they planned to remain married only until they decided it was no longer what they wanted, or they wanted an “open” marriage, etc. and now wanting to be out of that marriage they have fairly clear grounds for a decree of nullity, that has nothing to do with any sort of “the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage” but rather that be they Catholic or not, they want out of a marriage which they entered into without the intent of marriage as defined by the Church.

Until and unless they ask for their marriage to be proven invalid, canonically, every marriage is presumed valid until it is proven otherwise, after the state has already granted a civil divorce. They may or may not have more and clearer grounds for a decree of nullity than a couple who went though Catholic marriage preparation and are married in the Church who also seek a decree of nullity.

There is nothing in this process which would have some sort of special preference you say this priest was invoking for non-Catholics who want their marriage decreed invalid. There are plenty of people on CAF waiting for a decision from the local tribunal who can attest to this. In RCIA it’s no infrequently a shock to people to discover that indeed the Catholic Church is going to need to determine the validity of their current marriage, if it’s a “second” marriage, even though they were not Catholic at the time of the marriage-divorce-marriage. It’s one reason we spend considerable time in RCIA making this clear to those considering coming into the Church, including especailly those who are single. Once they come into the Church, even into the catechumenate, they will need to be aware of the status of anyone they go on to date, since that date could, in the eyes of the Church, be considered still married to someone they have civilly divorced.

 

[dvdjs]

“From the point of view of Orthodox theology a divorce granted by the State in the civil courts is not sufficient. Remarriage in church is only possible if the Church authorities have themselves granted a divorce.” (pg. 295) It would seem, therefore, to be a rough Eastern/Byzantine equivalent to the Latin annulment. The theology behind it are different, though. In the West, with its emphasis on the role of the couple in marrying each other, the tendency is to look for impediments to marriage at the moment the union was contracted. In the Byzantine East, however, with its emphasis on the role of the priest in marrying the couple, the tendency is to focus on the breakdown of the marriage relationship brought about by human weakness and sinfulness.

While I agree with the facts you present here, I think your interpretation is not correct; the issue of who administers the mystery is not a central issue. Both East and West have the idea of nullity, obviously independent of who is thought to be the minister of the sacrament. A marriage conducted against absolute impediment is not a marriage. East and West. No hocus pocus. And lack of consent is an impediment. Wast and West. In the West, in recent times, the informed concept of consent has been liberally stretched for economy.

Orthodox theology of marriage maintains the indissolubility of marriage. From early times an exception was made for adultery following the words of Christ. Over the years the list of exceptions has become much longer following … ???. In the Patristic age readmission to Eucharist after a secular remarriage - there was no such thing as a church remarriage - followed a long period of excommunication. Fruits of repentance - as Ghosty clarified in the thread that 5loaves linked to - may have included a termination of the marital relations. (That’s all gone now.) And half a millenium after St. Basil the Byzantine state had the Orthodox Church conduct remarriages; at that time it was of a penitential nature. (That’s almost all gone now.) Interpretation of contemporary Orthodox marriage practice as illuminating “Orthodox theology” is paradox. As to economy, I think that what Archbishop Zogbhy wrote that is quoted in the link is not economical at all; it is laxity that in the end would work against “good housekeeping”.

ISTM that in light of the firm idea of the indissolubility of marriage, and with the existence of the nullilty, the contemporary Western practice fits better with key elements of Orthodox theology: marriages are not dissolved, but not all wedding rituals are sacramental marriages - just as the Eucharist may be received unto condemnation. By the same token, since from Roman times the Latins viewed marriage as a life-time limited contract (hence remarriage after death of a spouse) the door is wide open to terminating a marriage (apostasy → spiritual death → valid remarriage); divorce can make more sense in Western theology than in Eastern.

Go figure.

 

[dvdjs]

With regards to the situation of Greek Catholics in the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the time of reunion to the turn of the 20th Century, I would hardly look to them for authentic Byzantine praxis at that time. Almost from the earliest moment of reunion the process of Latinization began.

I do not condemn them for it. Geographically the Ukrainians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Romanians, and all the other Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe were in an awkward position between their Orthodox roots and an almost rabid Roman Catholicism that was intent on defending itself from Protestantism, and therefore held anything that was not explicitly “Roman” in a great amount of suspicion. Politically they were situated between countries whose rulers were Roman Catholic, and whose privileges were given only to Roman Catholics (non-Roman Catholics being held in high suspicion and contempt), and countries whose rulers were Orthodox, and therefore held Eastern Catholics in complete disregard and sometimes outright contempt. To “prove” their Catholicity in the face of such a situation they often adopted much of Latin praxis, theology, spirituality, etc. This was reinforced by the fact that the young men who sought ordination to the priesthood were sent to Roman seminaries, where they received a Roman education, and often became bedazzled by Roman pageantry, scholarship, ritual, etc. Authentic Byzantine theology, praxis, ritual, etc. more often than not fell by the wayside and has only been in the process of recovery since the mid 1940s. That recovery itself was slowed thanks to the Communist Regime.

 

[dvdjs]

With regards to the situation of Greek Catholics in the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the time of reunion to the turn of the 20th Century, I would hardly look to them for authentic Byzantine praxis at that time. Almost from the earliest moment of reunion the process of Latinization began.

Is there authentically such a thing as “authentic Byzantine praxis”? What would it be and where would you find it - particularly in the era indicated? There is a hidden assumption that infects the thinking of many that there is some gold standard that applies across time, across geography, across culture. This idea is pure bologna. You are entitled to pursue the purest, most genuine, authentic Orthodoxy. But don’t make the mistake of criticizing others according to how they measure up to your created standard. Just like you, they are entitled to their own pursuit.

More bologna: the idea that any deviation from that standard in the various Unias ipso facto represents a “Latinization”. And from these hidden assumptions, well all sorts of things immediately “follow” - facts are not even necessary. Can you tell me, Philip, in 1700, over 50 years into the Union, what Latinizations were found in Uzhhorod Cathedral?

I do not condemn them for it.

Gee thanks.

To “prove” their Catholicity in the face of such a situation they often adopted much of Latin praxis, theology, spirituality, etc.

As often as I see this idea written, I’d think that there would be some documentation for it. And there are obvious time and places to check for evidence. But it is never given. I am skeptical of the whole idea. Who were we proving something to? The Hungarians were far, far more interested in magyarization, and loyalty to the kingdom/ empire. And it was in navigating these waters that our Bishops were a bit hit or miss.

This was reinforced by the fact that the young men who sought ordination to the priesthood were sent to Roman seminaries, where they received a Roman education, and often became bedazzled by Roman pageantry, scholarship, ritual, etc.

Impressed by Vienna or Budapest; by power, affluence, erudition, culture, probably.
But bedazzled??? by Roman pageantry??? Where do you come up with these interesting ideas.

Authentic Byzantine theology, praxis, ritual, etc. more often than not fell by the wayside and has only been in the process of recovery since the mid 1940s

. The mid 1940’s? Really. Yoj.

 

[mardukm]

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches subscribe to “economia” like the Orthodox do? If so, what are some of the similarities/differences between the two?

Oikonomia is generally an exercise of the Church’s power to bind and loose. Oikonomia is a relaxation of the Church’s rules or laws in order to meet the spiritual needs of particular persons or groups.

The only differences between the Churches is the matter to which this principle is applied. On this point, my observation (and only my observation) is that the Orthodox Churches are more likely to apply oikonomia even to divine laws, while Catholic Churches tend to apply oikonomia only to ecclesiastical laws.

FYI, the Latin Church also practices oikonomia, but does not generally use that term. Indults and dispensations are examples of the exercise of oikonomia in the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Is there authentically such a thing as “authentic Byzantine praxis”? What would it be and where would you find it - particularly in the era indicated? There is a hidden assumption that infects the thinking of many that there is some gold standard that applies across time, across geography, across culture. This idea is pure bologna. You are entitled to pursue the purest, most genuine, authentic Orthodoxy. But don’t make the mistake of criticizing others according to how they measure up to your created standard. Just like you, they are entitled to their own pursuit.

More bologna: the idea that any deviation from that standard in the various Unias ipso facto represents a “Latinization”. And from these hidden assumptions, well all sorts of things immediately “follow” - facts are not even necessary. Can you tell me, Philip, in 1700, over 50 years into the Union, what Latinizations were found in Uzhhorod Cathedral?

Gee thanks.

As often as I see this idea written, I’d think that there would be some documentation for it. And there are obvious time and places to check for evidence. But it is never given. I am skeptical of the whole idea. Who were we proving something to? The Hungarians were far, far more interested in magyarization, and loyalty to the kingdom/ empire. And it was in navigating these waters that our Bishops were a bit hit or miss.

Impressed by Vienna or Budapest; by power, affluence, erudition, culture, probably.
But bedazzled??? by Roman pageantry??? Where do you come up with these interesting ideas.

. The mid 1940’s? Really. Yoj.

OK, dvdjs, I will concede on the issue of marriage of which we were speaking. The more I look into it, the more I believe you may be correct. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction as far as a Byzantine theology of marriage is concerned.

With regards to the other things I said, here are my sources:

“Uniatism: Definition, Causes, Effects, Scope, Dangers, Remedies” by Cyril Korolevsky
“Metropolitan Andrew” again by Korolevsky
“The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky” by Peter Galadza
“Passion and Resurrection: The Greek-Catholic Church in Soviet Ukraine” by Serge Keleher

These are only the books I remember off the top of my head, but there are others as well that I’ve read. There are also numerous journal articles that I’ve read and CD lectures that I’ve listened to over and over again, both by such great thinkers as Fr. Serge Keleher, Fr. Robert Taft, Fr. Peter Galadza, Fr. Roman Galadza, Patriarch Lubomyr Husar, Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, etc.

You’re right that we cannot turn to any one century as being the “golden age” of Byzantine liturgy and theology, but we can point to certain things as obvious latinizations. One would be the adoption of Latin vestments by the very bishops who signed the Union of Brest only a short time after the Union was signed. This was perhaps not done at the Cathedral in Kiev, but it was done nevertheless and there is ample documentation of it (just see one of the books listed above). Other such latinizations that were adopted were the use of “sanctus bells”, kneelers, “missals”, “silent Mass”, organs, the Saturday night Vigil Liturgy, etc. The list goes on and on. These things, however, were adopted for a reason. They are what they are. The Vatican, however, at the urging of our own Eastern Church leaders, has called us Easterners to return to our authentic heritage and shed ourselves of these latinizations, including the most dangerous latinization of all, that of the mind. By returning to what is authentically ours we are not only being true to ourselves, but also to the instructions of our Church leaders and our Holy Father.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The mid 1940’s? Really. Yoj.

Yes, the mid 1940s. Check out the history of the development of the Ruthenian Recension, a publication that was meant for all Slavic Greek Catholics (Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Russians, you name 'em), but was so well done and highly respected that even a good number of Orthodox parish used it (minus any references to the Pope).

There had been a movement among the Slavic Churches to shed latinization and be “more Orthodox”, but it was opposed at almost every turn by everyone… except the Vatican! Metropolitan Sheptytsky, brave and holy man that he was, fought and fought until the Vatican finally intervened on his behalf. Thus Cardinal Tisserant and Fr. Cyril Korolevsky formed a commission that eventually produced the multi-volume Ruthenian Recension, the first installment of which was published and made mandatory right at the outbreak of the Communist take-over in Eastern Europe. This take-over, sadly, prevented the Recension from having any immediate effect because all the Greek Catholic Churches either went underground or were converted to Orthodox Churches. Again, check out the books I listed above at your own convenience. There is another book called “Finding a Hidden Church” by Fr. Christopher Zugger (a Ruthenian Catholic priest and a dear friend of mine) that is EXTREMELY good.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Oh, you could also check out the introduction to the Ruthenian Recension itself. It’s available from Eastern Christian Publications, but will run you a pretty penny. Also very informative are the introductions to both the Liturgikon and the Trebnyk of Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. Again, these will run you a pretty penny, but the information is invaluable. There are also innumerable journal articles in both “Eastern Churches Journal” and “Logos” in all of these issues.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m failing to see how Kyr Zoghby’s position on remarriage can be seen as “laxity” in any way.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

So, according to the thread on the byzcath forums (linked above), Orthodoxy (and one would presume Eastern Catholicism) makes a distinction between ecclesiastical divorce and a declaration of nullity. Ecclesiastical divorce (along with permission to remarry) seems to be granted as an exercise of oikonomia (I apologize for not using the proper spelling above), usually in cases where one spouse has been unfaithful to the other. This exercise is founded upon Christ’s statement that the one who divorces and remarries, except in cases of adultery****, commits adultery themselves. The Church, according to Zoghby, always rules in favor of the wronged spouse. There seems to be at least some Patristic support for this position if one looks at the end-notes given in “A Voice from the Byzantine East.”

A declaration of nullity is, indeed, a declaration that a marriage never really took place. According to at least one poster on byzcath there are very limited conditions for the declaration of nullity in the East: (a) lack of free will ; (b) consanguinity; (c) existence of a previous union not terminated by lawful divorce; and (d) inability to consummate the union.

Does this placate the matter?

 

[ConstantineTG]

A “Catholic understanding of marriage before coming into the Church” has nothing to do with the validity of marriage for non-Catholics. Canonically, every marriage is presumed valid until it is proven otherwise. This is Latin Church marriage 101. I don’t know where that priest got any different ideas about it. The marriage may be sacramental, as with two Baptized Christians, or natural as with two unbaptized persons. No tribunal of the Latin Church will accept an application for the determination of a decree of nullity until the couple, Catholic or non-Catholic, have completed a civil divorce.

If, unrelated to what you are calling economia in this priest’s example, he instead meant that it might be easier for a tribunal to find impediments at the time of the marriage vows in a marriage between two non-Catholics, impediments which contradict “the Catholic understanding of marriage”, for example they planned to never have children, they planned to remain married only until they decided it was no longer what they wanted, or they wanted an “open” marriage, etc. and now wanting to be out of that marriage they have fairly clear grounds for a decree of nullity, that has nothing to do with any sort of “the better good of their souls, rather than deny their desire to come into the Church and not regularize their marriage” but rather that be they Catholic or not, they want out of a marriage which they entered into without the intent of marriage as defined by the Church.

Until and unless they ask for their marriage to be proven invalid, canonically, every marriage is presumed valid until it is proven otherwise, after the state has already granted a civil divorce. They may or may not have more and clearer grounds for a decree of nullity than a couple who went though Catholic marriage preparation and are married in the Church who also seek a decree of nullity.

There is nothing in this process which would have some sort of special preference you say this priest was invoking for non-Catholics who want their marriage decreed invalid. There are plenty of people on CAF waiting for a decision from the local tribunal who can attest to this. In RCIA it’s no infrequently a shock to people to discover that indeed the Catholic Church is going to need to determine the validity of their current marriage, if it’s a “second” marriage, even though they were not Catholic at the time of the marriage-divorce-marriage. It’s one reason we spend considerable time in RCIA making this clear to those considering coming into the Church, including especailly those who are single. Once they come into the Church, even into the catechumenate, they will need to be aware of the status of anyone they go on to date, since that date could, in the eyes of the Church, be considered still married to someone they have civilly divorced.

Well I never said it will happen every time in every case. The priest gave an example but didn’t say its a hard rule. He just said it could happen that way.