Pope Francis on Divorce and Remarriage

[TheDoctor]

The Orthodox understanding is very different from the Catholic teaching.

I did not know what the Orthodox Church teaches, but I found what I think is a good balanced source (although I cannot agree on their theology based on my Latin Catholic understanding of the Sacrament:
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

I too do not see in the Pope’s comment an indication that he believes there is anything within the teaching of the Church that will change, more that we need to be sensitive to the needs of those who are divorced and their relationship with the Church.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Two wrongs do not make a right. Malpractice of Canon Law is not an argument for abolishing the punishment for some other sin.

Agreed.

Like I said, it was not a well-reasoned argument, but certainly there are by all appearances a double standard in this regard. It drives me a bit bonkers myself. :whacky: It’s difficult to defend the Church’s inconsistency in it’s application of Canon Law.

 

[agnes_therese]

I like Pope Francis but this statement makes me feel nervous that there is a sea change coming-

On giving the Sacraments to remarried divorcees
. . . When the commission of eight cardinals meets at the beginning of October we will discuss how to proceed.

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/gmg-26831//pag/2/

Maybe we should wait and see what the Pope & commission discuss before we go into panic mode?

 

[Elizium23]

Given that the Orthodox churches have valid sacraments, liturgies, saints and so forth; I highly doubt that the Holy Spirit would have permitted these churches to continue with this practice if it was illicit.

It’s not just illicit but invalid. An Orthodox person who has a previous valid marriage would marry invalidly from a Catholic point of view. In Catholic law, a previous marriage for anyone must be judged invalid or dissolved if possible before another marriage can occur. Catholic law may not matter at all for two Orthodox people who don’t plan to become Catholic, but should one or both choose to convert, they would have to separate before they would be eligible for sacraments in our Church.

 

[CutlerB]

Agreed.

Like I said, it was not a well-reasoned argument, but certainly there are by all appearances a double standard in this regard. It drives me a bit bonkers myself. :whacky: It’s difficult to defend the Church’s inconsistency in it’s application of Canon Law.

That’s why one shouldn’t defend inconsistency.

 

[kag1982]

But then, if the annulment isn’t “guaranteed”, viz. that the marriage could have been valid, then “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” is applicable and the marriage indissoluble! That cannot be changed, no matter how “merciful” one wants to be. And no, she wouldn’t be “shunned as a harlot”…

Don’t think God wants a woman to have to stay with an abusive husband or wants a person whose spouse has run off with a younger version to never be able to marry again. An act of mercy might be to define the process so that states that emotional or physical abuse is grounds for an annulment in clear English and makes it easy for victims to get one. The problem is that the Church is a fallible human organization trying to discern the will of God and sometimes tweaks are needed.

 

[CutlerB]

Don’t think God wants a woman to have to stay with an abusive husband or wants a person whose spouse has run off with a younger version to never be able to marry again. An act of mercy might be to define the process so that states that emotional or physical abuse is grounds for an annulment in clear English and makes it easy for victims to get one. The problem is that the Church is a fallible human organization trying to discern the will of God and sometimes tweaks are needed.

I never said God wanted her to stay with him. But then, neither of us two know what God wants. Excuse me, the Church is an infallible institution, in the proper sense of the term. If the Church grants an annulment, the matter is settled. If she doesn’t, the marriage was valid. That’s all it’s about.

 

[Starsweeper]

The Orthodox view of re-marriage is simply that, although the sacrament of matrimony is for life, out of mercy and as a concession to human weakness the partner who did not wound the bond (ie the victim of another partner’s adultery) should be given another marriage. As Jesus said with Moses, it was out of the people’s “hardness of heart” that he allowed divorce, not because it was good or right in itself (it objectively isn’t).

“Mercy triumphs over judgement” and I might add legalism.

The second marriage in orthodoxy is usually a sombre service, not joyous, to remind the couple that they are only marrying again because of human sin and divine mercy, not because it is “perfectly ok” to do so.

Now, whatever one might think about the soundness of this Eastern practice, it does make Orthodoxy look - as a whole - more concerned for human weakness and more compassionate than us. Whether one likes it or not, that is how it makes us look. Victims of abusive partners feel wronged, as if the church has no compassion for them, when their “partner” might be off with some other gal living it up and they are in misery, consigned to life-long loneliness.

Given that the Orthodox churches have valid sacraments, liturgies, saints and so forth; I highly doubt that the Holy Spirit would have permitted these churches to continue with this practice if it was illicit.

It isn’t the way we do things in the Latin tradition, however, perhaps we should start being truly “universal” and quite thinking that “Latin = the right way”. The way the Catholic Church has approached the issue is through some very liberal interpretations of annulments. I have seen some that are truly concessions to human weakness rather than founded in legalistic fact. People might not like to admit it, but through our often very liberal annulment process, we almost already have a Latin equivalent to the Orthodox “oikonomia”.

Just sayin’

Well, did you know that the Orthodox Churches allow contraception as well for similar reasons of economy? I don’t necessarily think that just because the Orthodox have the seven sacraments that automatically means that they are just the same as Catholics. It’s just not a one-to-one translation. And I speak with some authority here as I converted to being Catholic from being Orthodox.

I have absolutely nothing but good will and admiration for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but on the matters of divorce and contraception, I side with the Catholic view. How merciful is it to deny the truth of the gospel to the faithful, even if these truths are at times difficult?

 

[TheAdvocate]

I never said God wanted her to stay with him. But then, neither of us two know what God wants. Excuse me, the Church is an infallible institution, in the proper sense of the term. If the Church grants an annulment, the matter is settled. If she doesn’t, the marriage was valid. That’s all it’s about.

Are you actually saying that decisions by diocesan tribunals are infallible proclamations!!??? No way!!

 

[TheAdvocate]

For those of you who think that the Early Church did not allow divorce and remarriage, I present to you the following from The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809140667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375311914&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+commentary+on+canon+law

“At least by the time of Cyprian in the mid-third century, adultery was ranked among the deadly sins to be submitted to the Church’s penitential discipline. Since the gospels equate remarriage after divorce with adultery, the question of the ecclesial status of Christians who had divorced and remarried in accord with Roman law could not avoided. The extant sources do not clearly indicate how the Church dealt with divorced Christians during the first four centuries, and it may be that the practice differed from church to church. However, scattered ecclesiastical texts and new divorce legislation of the Christian emperors suggest that, in many places at least, the practice was to excommunicate or bar from the eucharistic table those who remarried after a divorce and to subject them to a period of penance which could last several years. At the end of this period, they were reconciled to the Church but not necessarily required to separate.

This somewhat lenient practice of concession and toleration continued in the East. However, it was displaced in the West during the fourth and early fifth centuries by a more rigorist practice which was crystallized in the writings of Jerome and especially Augustine. Augustine’s meditation on the on the New Testament led him to the conclusion that, if remarriage after divorce constituted adultery, then some residue of marriage (quiddam coniugale) must survive the de facto the de iure disintegration of the social fact of the marriage. This “marital something” was “the bond” (vinculum) whose perdurance even after divorce precluded the establishment of another marriage. In this way, Augustine quietly moved the prohibition of divorce beyond the realm of morality into the realm of ontology: remarriage after divorce was not only forbidden but impossible as long as the original spouse was alive."

Keep in mind that I’m quoting from the Commentary on LATIN canon law. Bottom line? In the early Church in the East, before the schism, divorce and remarriage was practiced.

This does not mean that I disapprove of the Catholic annulment system; I’m only saying that the annulment system we have today in the Roman Church is not the only possible way of dealing with the problems arising from divorce and remarriage.

 

[Elizium23]

Are you actually saying that decisions by diocesan tribunals are infallible proclamations!!??? No way!!

I believe that a tribunal judgement may be appealed to Rome. But once Rome decides the matter, you know what they say: “Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est”.

Although the Church speaks with juridicial authority here and not with doctrinal infallibility, we must remember that she was entrusted with the keys to bind and loose. A finding of invalidity based on due process is just as sure as we can get about the matter.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I believe that a tribunal judgement may be appealed to Rome. But once Rome decides the matter, you know what they say: “Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est”.

True, but the vast, vast majority of them do not go that far.

 

[Corki]

The Orthodox view of re-marriage is simply that, although the sacrament of matrimony is for life, out of mercy and as a concession to human weakness the partner who did not wound the bond (ie the victim of another partner’s adultery) should be given another marriage. As Jesus said with Moses, it was out of the people’s “hardness of heart” that he allowed divorce, not because it was good or right in itself (it objectively isn’t).

You have answered one of my key questions on this practice. As soon as I read the media’s version of Pope Francis’ comments, I envisioned plenty of (mostly) men who left wives to get married “again” coming back to the Sacraments but their innocent wives (mostly) being in limbo. In today’s world where, in the US at least, most divorces are “no fault”, how does the Orthodox Church determine which spouse is the innocent one?

 

[Vouthon]

For those of you who think that the Early Church did not allow divorce and remarriage, I present to you the following from The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809140667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375311914&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+commentary+on+canon+law

“At least by the time of Cyprian in the mid-third century, adultery was ranked among the deadly sins to be submitted to the Church’s penitential discipline. Since the gospels equate remarriage after divorce with adultery, the question of the ecclesial status of Christians who had divorced and remarried in accord with Roman law could not avoided. The extant sources do not clearly indicate how the Church dealt with divorced Christians during the first four centuries, and it may be that the practice differed from church to church. However, scattered ecclesiastical texts and new divorce legislation of the Christian emperors suggest that, in many places at least, the practice was to excommunicate or bar from the eucharistic table those who remarried after a divorce and to subject them to a period of penance which could last several years. At the end of this period, they were reconciled to the Church but not necessarily required to separate.

This somewhat lenient practice of concession and toleration continued in the East. However, it was displaced in the West during the fourth and early fifth centuries by a more rigorist practice which was crystallized in the writings of Jerome and especially Augustine. Augustine’s meditation on the on the New Testament led him to the conclusion that, if remarriage after divorce constituted adultery, then some residue of marriage (quiddam coniugale) must survive the de facto the de iure disintegration of the social fact of the marriage. This “marital something” was “the bond” (vinculum) whose perdurance even after divorce precluded the establishment of another marriage. In this way, Augustine quietly moved the prohibition of divorce beyond the realm of morality into the realm of ontology: remarriage after divorce was not only forbidden but impossible as long as the original spouse was alive."

Keep in mind that I’m quoting from the Commentary on LATIN canon law. Bottom line? In the early Church in the East, before the schism, divorce and remarriage was practiced.

This does not mean that I disapprove of the Catholic annulment system; I’m only saying that the annulment system we have today in the Roman Church is not the only possible way of dealing with the problems arising from divorce and remarriage.

I agree with you, however the problem is that many Catholics associate “Latin tradition” and “practice” with “dogma” and decline to consider entirely the eastern tradition of the universal church or if they do treat it as somehow subordinate to the Latin tradition from Augustine, to Bernard, to Aquinas and so forth.

If you suggest to them “but in the orthodox church…” or “but in the Christian east…” then they will hit back, “Heresy!”…Simply because it is not the Roman way…

We are still practically breathing with “one lung”.

 

[57thDimension]

I present to you the following from The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809140667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375311914&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+commentary+on+canon+law

Which has no imprimatur.

+Sebastian

 

[TheAdvocate]

Which has no imprimatur.

+Sebastian

Even so, it doesn’t change the facts. I have read the same thing in other sources.

No imprimatur does not mean the history I cited is not factual.

The fact remains that the Orthodox system in use today follows what was done in the East in the pre-schismatic Church. Pope Francis wants to revisit the Orthodox approach.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I agree with you, however the problem is that many Catholics associate “Latin tradition” and “practice” with “dogma” and decline to consider entirely the eastern tradition of the universal church or if they do treat it as somehow subordinate to the Latin tradition from Augustine, to Bernard, to Aquinas and so forth.

If you suggest to them “but in the orthodox church…” or “but in the Christian east…” then they will hit back, “Heresy!”…Simply because it is not the Roman way…

We are still practically breathing with “one lung”.

This is true, even if you are talking about a pre-schismatic, unified Church.

 

[Starsweeper]

I agree with you, however the problem is that many Catholics associate “Latin tradition” and “practice” with “dogma” and decline to consider entirely the eastern tradition of the universal church or if they do treat it as somehow subordinate to the Latin tradition from Augustine, to Bernard, to Aquinas and so forth.

If you suggest to them “but in the orthodox church…” or “but in the Christian east…” then they will hit back, “Heresy!”…Simply because it is not the Roman way…

We are still practically breathing with “one lung”.

Still,

 

[57thDimension]

Even so, it doesn’t change the facts. I have read the same thing in other sources.

I don’t believe my statement conveyed such a sentiment.

No imprimatur does not mean the history I cited is not factual.

And again. The concern is in regards to assessment of current Western practice, and ‘impatience’ with it; Beal makes a few statements that are quite evidently from a they-can-do-it-why-can’t-we standpoint (to put it mildly). Making such overtones is part of what the censor looks for.

The fact remains that the Orthodox system in use today follows what was done in the East in the pre-schismatic Church. Pope Francis wants to revisit the Orthodox approach.

If you refer to marriage, then yes, in my understanding that is true. With regards to other practices (e.g. contraception), no, things have changed.

+Sebastian

 

[Starsweeper]

I agree with you, however the problem is that many Catholics associate “Latin tradition” and “practice” with “dogma” and decline to consider entirely the eastern tradition of the universal church or if they do treat it as somehow subordinate to the Latin tradition from Augustine, to Bernard, to Aquinas and so forth.

If you suggest to them “but in the orthodox church…” or “but in the Christian east…” then they will hit back, “Heresy!”…Simply because it is not the Roman way…

We are still practically breathing with “one lung”.

Still, but how do you deal with the Orthodox approval of contraception? One shouldn’t assume that Eastern theology is applicable or even preferable to the theological traditions of the Catholic Church. And I am saying that with heaps of respect for the Orthodox.

And if divorce is suddenly a-ok, and marriage isn’t forever, then what why what was the point of opposing King Henry the 8th?