Orthodox divorce and remarriage + ecumenism

[TheAdvocate]

It seems that ecumenism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches focuses so much on papal primacy and the Filioque, but in theory, what if those two (arguably) biggest issues were resolved? What, then, of the question of divorce and remarriage? I mean, there is a vast difference in the understanding of the sacrament between the Orthodox and Catholics. The Orthodox will remarry you after a penitential service, arguing that the divine economy would allow for a relaxation in the law (“whoever leaves his wife and marries another commits adultery…”) if the following that law would lead to an unusual harshness.

I mean, how would this issue be resolved ecumenically? It seem to be under the radar both in general awareness and in ecumenical discussions.

I invite both Orthodox and Catholics to comment on this. (For example, I would like to hear an Orthodox perspective on the Catholic annullment system.)

 

[1ke]

Accepting Papal Primacy means accepting the whole enchilada. Just because it isn’t the focus of ecumenical dialog doesn’t mean that the Bishops in both Churches are not keenly aware of the very real obstacles, including divorce/remarriage and contraception among others.

 

[Nine_Two]

How does the Western Church deal with the issue with the Eastern Catholic Churches?

 

[1ke]

How does the Western Church deal with the issue with the Eastern Catholic Churches?

There isn’t anything to deal with. The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is no divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.

 

[Harpazo]

There isn’t anything to deal with. The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is no divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.

Actually, it’s not as simple as you might think.

In the Latin church, it is the couple that marries each other (bestows the Sacrament upon each other), with a member of the clergy present. However, in all of the Eastern Catholic churches to my knowledge, it is the priest that weds the couple and crowns them.

If things don’t work out for the couple, they can possibly get an annulment. The tribunal would determine that one or both of the people invalidated the marriage from the start, since they bestow it upon each other. However, for the Eastern Catholic couple, what is the tribunal supposed to determine? That the priest didn’t want them to be validly married?

A little sticky of a situation, wouldn’t you say?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[1ke]

Actually, it’s not as simple as you might think.

In the Latin church, it is the couple that marries each other (bestows the Sacrament upon each other), with a member of the clergy present. However, in all of the Eastern Catholic churches to my knowledge, it is the priest that weds the couple and crowns them.

If things don’t work out for the couple, they can possibly get an annulment. The tribunal would determine that one or both of the people invalidated the marriage from the start, since they bestow it upon each other. However, for the Eastern Catholic couple, what is the tribunal supposed to determine? That the priest didn’t want them to be validly married?

A little sticky of a situation, wouldn’t you say?

In Christ,
Andrew

The canons of the Eastern Catholic Church on marriage are the same as the Latin Church as it pertains to impediments, consent, and intent.

 

[Harpazo]

The canons of the Eastern Catholic Church on marriage are the same as the Latin Church as it pertains to impediments, consent, and intent.

That’s exactly the problem! Does the tribunal determine that the priest didn’t really intend to marry the couple? Ultimately, that’s what they’ll have to determine.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Just_Lurking]

The canons of the Eastern Catholic Church on marriage are the same as the Latin Church as it pertains to impediments, consent, and intent.

In addition to all the impediments in the Latin code, the Eastern code also contains the impediment of spiritual relationship.

 

[wynd]

I invite both Orthodox and Catholics to comment on this. (For example, I would like to hear an Orthodox perspective on the Catholic annullment system.)

My perspective on the annulment system is that it’s divorce by another name. I read the Family Issues forum on this site from time to time, and an annulment is the first thing people suggest when marital issues arise. Cheating spouse? Get an annulment. Alcoholism? Get an annulment. Pornography? Get an annulment. Theoretically one could have unlimited annulments and be married any number of times. It’s these types of attitudes that do the most to poke holes in the Catholic teaching on annulments, and the Orthodox teaching on divorce and remarriage starts to make more sense.

Again, this is my individual perspective, not official Orthodox teaching, so feel free to rip me to shreds.

 

[TheAdvocate]

In addition to all the impediments in the Latin code, the Eastern code also contains the impediment of spiritual relationship.

What is a “spiritual relationship” impediment?

 

[Hesychios]

That’s exactly the problem! Does the tribunal determine that the priest didn’t really intend to marry the couple? Ultimately, that’s what they’ll have to determine.

In Christ,
Andrew

Good point.

My old Eastern Catholic priest had made clear that he did not approve of the annulment tribunal functioning in his church, it made a shipwreck of the priestly administered sacrament in the Byzantine understanding.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What is a “spiritual relationship” impediment?

From the Eastern code:

Canon 811

1. From baptism there arises a spiritual relationship between a sponsor and the baptized person and the parents of the same that invalidates marriage.
2. If a baptism is repeated under condition, a spiritual relationship does not arise, unless the same sponsor was employed for the second ceremony.

 

[1ke]

That’s exactly the problem! Does the tribunal determine that the priest didn’t really intend to marry the couple? Ultimately, that’s what they’ll have to determine.

In Christ,
Andrew

You misunderstand. Consent and intent in the canons pertain to the couple, not the priest.

 

[1ke]

My perspective on the annulment system is that it’s divorce by another name. I read the Family Issues forum on this site from time to time, and an annulment is the first thing people suggest when marital issues arise. Cheating spouse? Get an annulment. Alcoholism? Get an annulment. Pornography? Get an annulment.

Yes, there are many people on CAF who offer those suggestions.

That has no bearing on reality. The things you list above are not grounds for a decree of nullity and the idea of “Catholic divorce” indicates a complete misunderstanding of what a decree of nullity is and why it might be granted.

Theoretically one could have unlimited annulments and be married any number of times. It’s these types of attitudes that do the most to poke holes in the Catholic teaching on annulments, and the Orthodox teaching on divorce and remarriage starts to make more sense.

These types of attitudes, while common, do not accurately represent Catholic teaching.

Again, this is my individual perspective, not official Orthodox teaching, so feel free to rip me to shreds.

I would not expect a member of the Orthodox community to have a deep understanding of Catholic theology on the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, I can see why casual reading of an internet forum on which anyone can post anything (myself included)-- regardless of actual qualifications in the area on which they post-- can lead to the conclusions you have formed. I’ve made it a point to read several books on the subject, and had a clas at the diocese on the subject. But, there are many people who have an uninformed opinion, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

So, if you do want to learn more about what the Church actually teaches, rather than what people on this forum think on the subject, I suggest Michael Smith Foster’s book Annulment: The Wedding That Was.

 

[wynd]

Yes, there are many people on CAF who offer those suggestions.

That has no bearing on reality. The things you list above are not grounds for a decree of nullity and the idea of “Catholic divorce” indicates a complete misunderstanding of what a decree of nullity is and why it might be granted.

These types of attitudes, while common, do not accurately represent Catholic teaching.

I would not expect a member of the Orthodox community to have a deep understanding of Catholic theology on the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, I can see why casual reading of an internet forum on which anyone can post anything (myself included)-- regardless of actual qualifications in the area on which they post-- can lead to the conclusions you have formed. I’ve made it a point to read several books on the subject, and had a clas at the diocese on the subject. But, there are many people who have an uninformed opinion, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

So, if you do want to learn more about what the Church actually teaches, rather than what people on this forum think on the subject, I suggest Michael Smith Foster’s book Annulment: The Wedding That Was.

Thanks for your balanced reply.

 

[Harpazo]

You misunderstand. Consent and intent in the canons pertain to the couple, not the priest.

In the Latin church yes, but for Eastern Catholics it is the priest who weds the two.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[1ke]

In the Latin church yes, but for Eastern Catholics it is the priest who weds the two.

In Christ,
Andrew

I am not talking about the Latin Church. I am talking about the canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The couple must be free of impediments, give valid consent, and have proper intent as outlined in the canons (Eastern Canons). Without those elements present, the marriage is not valid. So an impediment, a defect of consent, or a defect of intent can indeed invalidate marriage.

The giving and exchanging of *consent *and the proper *intent *are still necessary for the validity of marriage. The priest being the minister of marriage via the Crowning, rather than the couple, does not negate this.

It takes freedom to marry (no impediments), valid consent, valid intent, AND the Crowning.