Pope Francis on Divorce and Remarriage

[bben15]

They had to be married in order for the children to be legitimate.

In the Church today, legitimacy has no meaning. Before 1983, it meant something.

Since they were thought to be validly married, the children are considered legitimate.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Note that they are not “re-marrying.” An annulment is a declaration that the sacrament never took place.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the Orthodox don’t declare previous marriages null before remarrying. They actually grant what they call an “ecclesiastical divorce.”

 

[bben15]

What you don’t seem to understand is that the Orthodox don’t declare previous marriages null before remarrying. They actually grant what they call an “ecclesiastical divorce.”

Yes, that is what they believe. But, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, once married, always married. So, the Church doesn’t recognize these “ecclesiastical divorces.”

 

[Tomdstone]

In the Church today, legitimacy has no meaning. Before 1983, it meant something.

Since they were thought to be validly married, the children are considered legitimate.

But you just said that they were not validly married. Which is it?

 

[bben15]

But you just said that they were not validly married. Which is it?

Illegitimate people can be validly married. I meant that before 1983, illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination. So, nowadays, it really doesn’t matter if the child is illegitimate or not.

Children born to a marriage that is later annulled are considered legitimate. The reason being is even though they weren’t actually married, it was thought that they were married. However, if a couple decides to have another child after receiving an annulment, the child would be illegitimate, because the parents now knew that they weren’t validly married.

 

[kag1982]

That statement is bordering on slander.

Pope Benedict spent much of his papacy getting people to think about Vatican II. He reaffirmed all of the teachings of the council.

If there was a single theme that you could say about Pope Benedict’s papacy, it would be to get Catholics to think and learn rather than focus only on our personal feelings.

I think that he wanted to get rid of the normal Mass… Hence the butchered English translation and all the old-timey things at the Vatican. He definitely empowered people who didn’t like Vatican II.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I think that he wanted to get rid of the normal Mass… Hence the butchered English translation and all the old-timey things at the Vatican. He definitely empowered people who didn’t like Vatican II.

“Old-timey.” Ha ha…I love it!

 

[Khalid]

Certain Catholics do believe that the Catholic Church demands that women follow certain traditional gender roles and that they submit to their husbands.

Because such teaching is so clearly woven throughout every page of both testaments of the Bible, from Genesis 1 all the way to Paul’s epistles? (And by thus being found in the Bible, which is the written word of revelation of God, commanded by God, is shown to be approved of God [as God does not command evil even if he may sometimes report it, such as of the concubines of Solomon].)

Women respect their husbands and the husbands love their wives as Christ loved his Church.

The Bible, in Greek and in virtually every English translation, has St Paul commanding that women submit (v, 22) to their husbands as a representative of the Lord (and not just merely “respect”, or, as put in the KJV, “reverence” [v, 33]), and commanding that men love their wives (which you got the second part correct).

:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it …] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I Corinthians xi:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. …] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This last quote goes too far in the opposite direction - on first inspection, it appears that Paul is teaching that women only have the image of God by participation, not integrally, as men do - but that they reflect the glory of the image of God (male men), as men (males) reflect the glory of God himself. This is an ancient opinion, which, within Christianity, has a pedigree dating to the early-to-middle 1st century at the very latest, as the 114th surah in the non-canonical quasi-gnostic Gospel of Thomas (ca. AD 150) has it:
Logion 114:

Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Which seems to be an expansion upon a certain interpretation of Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians, given above, with man being the glory of God and woman the glory of man, teaching here that Christ will make woman the image of God as man already is, elevating her beyond being the reflection of the image of God.

This is doubtless a teaching condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church: all humanity (male and female) is integrally a bearer of the image of God. But the words of Paul in I Corinthians, Ephesians, and elsewhere, although they may be interpreted too strongly, leave absolutely no room for an emasculated, non-gendered (or non-gender-role’d) interpretation of God’s teaching through the Apostle.

 

[Khalid]

Erratum: the grammar of my last paragraph above is ambiguous. To rephrase:

“The belief that only man integrally bears the image of God is heresy. Both male and female integrally bear the image of God, and were created to bear the image of God: as Genesis says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”. However, the Bible, in teaching complementarianism/modified patriarchy/difference feminism, or whatever it may be named, can be far more easily interpreted to support such a view [a too-extreme patriarchy] than be interpreted to support an egalitarian view.”

 

[kag1982]

Yeah… Paul’s attitudes toward women had nothing at all with the time and place he was living in… I highly doubt that God would want half of mankind excluded from civil society and whose only roles are cleaning and cooking for the menfolk along with having dozens of kids.

 

[DAML72]

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’

As someone who was pulled to the Catholic Church, in part, because I have never been able to spiritually come to terms with my husband leaving and acquiring a no-fault divorce, I kind of like the Orthodox approach. The more I sit with it, it almost feels more satisfactory to me than the Latin tradition. I plan to seek an annulment, and I think I will most likely get it (neither of us was Catholic, he had no faith, and there were a lot of other factors that support annulment). But after you’ve spent 13 years with a person, have two children with them, it’s hard to then think of your marriage as being invalid (even if it was) - and it’s not exactly the most loving way to approach the children of that union.

On the other hand - who determines when it is acceptable for the person who was left to move on? What are the standards to determine that there is absolutely no hope of return and reconciliation?

This is just food for thought - I plan to obey the Church and to put my situation in God’s hands. If I am granted an annulment, then I will feel free to date and possibly re-marry. If not, I will resign myself to a life of chastity.

 

[DAML72]

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.

Agreed. I am a recent convert to Catholicism. As mentioned above, I was raised in a faithful Protestant family, but my ex was not, and has no faith whatsoever. However, he was baptized. If I were Catholic and married someone outside the Church, I could get an annulment basically as a matter of course for lack of form - it’s just an administrative issue. But, even though neither of us is Catholic and, consequently, did not have a Catholic understanding of marriage when we married, I still have to go through the entire annulment process. Not complaining, really, just pointing out that there are probably things that can be done to reach people better without changing church teaching.

 

[DAML72]

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?

True.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yeah… Paul’s attitudes toward women had nothing at all with the time and place he was living in… I highly doubt that God would want half of mankind excluded from civil society and whose only roles are cleaning and cooking for the menfolk along with having dozens of kids.

You mean the St. Paul who lived during the time Jesus lived?

Funny, I don’t recall Jesus --or St Paul–saying that women should ONLY clean and cook for men and have dozens of kids. Plenty of societies over history (and pre history) have been matriarchical. Even the patriarchical societies seldom limited women ‘only’ to the above. Even in the supposedly dark ages of St. Paul D) some at least of the upper class women held trades and had their own money. . .in the lower class, widows often maintained control of the business their husband had run. . and to put it in perspective, not all that many MEN were able to hold a trade, and often because they were conscripted for military service, by choice or conscription, they would be killed. .few women had ‘dozens of children’ even in the societies or times when many children would be desirable (let’s think the Black Death, which wiped out one-third of the population. Now you tell me whether it would not be highly desirable for MORE children to be born then in order to help redress the societal imbalance there. We wouldn’t have seen the Industrial Revolution if women (and men) had NOT ‘restored’ the population now would we?)

Honestly, I wish people would stop using clichés and emotionalism and cherry picked examples and then maybe they wouldn’t get so confused by the Church’s teaching which both Pope Benedict AND Pope Francis are teaching. . .without contradicting each other. . .

 

[DAML72]

Well, this could be denying the victim of abuse or just the wronged spouse in general (mainly women I might add) the ability to remain within the Church and have meaningful adult companionship. Basically, it is telling a woman that she must remain as an “old maid” while her husband shacks up with his secretary and if she wants to remarry, she has to go through a long, tedious process that is basically a “second” divorce and can take years. And BTW, she is not guaranteed the annulment. And we wonder why people are leaving the Church. A clearer process and a bit of mercy is a good thing.

But the truth is the truth - hard as it is. And if the Church compromises on its teachings, in direct contradiction of the Word of Christ, then it no longer holds the whole Truth. I say, if someone doesn’t want to live by the truth, let them leave. There are thousands of Protestant churches that don’t seem to think divorce is that big of a deal. When people are ready for the Truth, then they will come back to the Catholic Church.

 

[kag1982]

But the truth is the truth - hard as it is. And if the Church compromises on its teachings, in direct contradiction of the Word of Christ, then it no longer holds the whole Truth. I say, if someone doesn’t want to live by the truth, let them leave. There are thousands of Protestant churches that don’t seem to think divorce is that big of a deal. When people are ready for the Truth, then they will come back to the Catholic Church.

But I think what Pope Francis is going for here is mercy in situations like the ones I mentioned. The spouse in question didn’t break the marriage vows yet he or she must suffer because of the sins of their ex-spouse. Rather than telling such a person, tough luck and get lost why not extend some love and pastoral support.

@Tantrum Ergo… I am aware of the historical realities of the time. My problem is with Catholics who seek to apply this situation to 21st century America. To the extent that Paul wrote that women were unequal to men he was reflecting the attitudes of a 1st century Jewish man. And even his attitudes toward women are complicated because women were financing Paul’s travels.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, 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.

What is your opinion on the marriage annulment situation in the American RCC? According to one survey that I have seen, a large percentage (over 90%) of US Catholics who apply for the annulment are given it. Are the divorce numbers in the EO Church any different from the marriage annulment numbers in the RCC ?

 

[Tomdstone]

Funny, I don’t recall Jesus --or St Paul–saying that women should ONLY clean and cook for men and have dozens of kids. . .

No, but he did say:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Cor 14:34-35
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”[1 Tim. 2:11-12]
"Now I permit a woman neither to teach nor exercise authority over a man, but let her be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned]; but the woman, having [first] been thoroughly deceived, became [involved] in the transgression [of Adam], and she will be saved by the Child-bearing , if they abide in faith, and love and sanctification with self-restraint."[1 Tim. 2:12–15]

 

[DAML72]

But I think what Pope Francis is going for here is mercy in situations like the ones I mentioned. The spouse in question didn’t break the marriage vows yet he or she must suffer because of the sins of their ex-spouse. Rather than telling such a person, tough luck and get lost why not extend some love and pastoral support.

And my response to you would be that I am one of those people, and the fact that I could not find within Protestant churches a consistent approach to this issue made me lose my faith. If the Church is going to just pick and choose which parts of scripture it’s going to follow and which it is not, then it has essentially invalidated the Word of God. If the Word of God is subjective, then where do I find the Truth? Do you see where this is leading?

There are some Evangelical Protestants who are innocent victims like you mentioned who choose to ‘stand’ for their marriages - even when the spouse divorces them and re-marries. These people continue to hold true to their marriage vows, and there are not an insignificant number of cases in which the spouse returns and the marriage is healed.

Jesus says that any man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. (Matthew 5:32). Even when you are the ‘innocent victim’ in a divorce, it’s not so easy to shrug it off and start over with someone else. Even the ‘innocent’ victim can feel guilt and responsibility. And what if they ex-spouse decides to come back? Is it always loving to tell the innocent person to just move on?

I don’t feel that the position of the Church now is to tell divorced people ‘tough luck get lost’. It simply denies communion to those who have decided to marry prior to obtaining an annulment. You’re assuming that healing and future happiness can only come from getting married again. Are we not taught that true healing and happiness can only come from our relationship with Christ? How do you know that a person whose spouse has left them is not living out the will of God in carrying a cross in staying true to his or her marriage vows?

I do think there may be some ways in which the Church could streamline the annulment process a bit. But, at the same time, it’s very important to stress the teaching of the Church - the teaching of Jesus - on the sacrament of marriage. Also, many people find that the annulment process is, though difficult, very healing. Should we be taking that away from people? I don’t know.

 

[kag1982]

I don’t feel that the position of the Church now is to tell divorced people ‘tough luck get lost’. It simply denies communion to those who have decided to marry prior to obtaining an annulment.

Which isn’t guaranteed… So the Church is telling these spouses to get lost. I know that many divorcees feel alienated by the Church, especially those in my parents generation and older. They don’t think the Church understands the realities of certain situations.

You’re assuming that healing and future happiness can only come from getting married again. Are we not taught that true healing and happiness can only come from our relationship with Christ? How do you know that a person whose spouse has left them is not living out the will of God in carrying a cross in staying true to his or her marriage vows?

Married people didn’t take vows of chastity and “discern” a vocation in which they would be forced to spend their life alone. (And even most priests and religious don’t live alone.) It is quite cruel for the Church to demand such a lonely life because hubby left the original model for a trophy wife or something like that. Even if it was a mutually bad fit and both parties erred, I think that a bit of compassion and love would be wonderful.