www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Divorce East and West

Hi all,

I am a divorced Roman Catholic. As of yet I have not sought an annulment though if I ever consider marrying again I will do so.

Maybe I am not a "true" catholic but I have a problem with the whole western perspective that a divorced person who remarries is *necessarily* comitting adultery. Somehow this just doesnt sit with me.

I understand the East allows divorce and remarriage. Can someone explain the differences between the eastern and western views?

Thanks,

Jason

Dear Jason:
First of all, please understand that the Orthodox Church tolerates remarriage, but unlike in the Roman Church, this is looked askance upon. When a widower or divorcee remarries, the service is entirely different than for a first marriage; it is a penitential service, usually held in the vestibule of the Church in dark vestments, sometimes followed by a period of not being allowed to take Communion (this is "mandated" by the ancient canons, but no longer commonly done).

A widower or divorcee who remarries is called a bigamist. In the Orthodox Church, Marriage is not dissolved by death, so a widow or widower is still married.

A man married more than once can not be ordained a subdeacon (or higher) and if already in the clergy, is unfrocked. This is according to the New Testament directive that deacons must be men of no more than one wife. (In the Roman Church, I am told, the pope may give a dispensation to override this Scriptural directive ... if someone knowledgeable on this list knows whether or not this is true, please comment!)

The Orthodox Church furthermore disallows a man married to a bigamist to be ordained ... because my wife is a widow, I can not be ordained a subdeacon (which I do not desire anyway).

A second marriage is commonly not regarded as a Sacrament.

Now, to answer your question:
Divorce is allowed for adultery and, by local Church law, often for other reasons, such as insanity, life imprisonment, desertion, et cetera. Divorce consists in permission given by a bishop or synod of bishops to remarry when one's spouse is still alive.

My understanding of the Roman view against divorce is that it was predicated on a mistranslation in the Vulgate of of the words of Christ, "Whoever leaves his wife, other than for [disputed word; in Greek, 'porneia'] and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Perhaps someone who knows Latin as well as Greek could comment on how "porneia" was translated. This passage is also difficult to translate because the verb "to marry" in Greek means to "have coitus with". The Sacrament is called "Sacred Marriage" because, even as far back in time as Home, "Sacred Marriage" meant what we simply call "marriage", but without the adjective "sacred", it could, and generally did, simply mean "to have sexual relations with". Much gets lost in the translation.

Photius, Reader

--- Commence Original Message ---

Hi all,

I am a divorced Roman Catholic. As of yet I have not sought an annulment though if I ever consider marrying again I will do so.

Maybe I am not a "true" catholic but I have a problem with the whole western perspective that a divorced person who remarries is *necessarily* comitting adultery. Somehow this just doesnt sit with me.

I understand the East allows divorce and remarriage. Can someone explain the differences between the eastern and western views?

Thanks,

Jason

Commentary on Matthew 5:32, Matthew's "exceptive clauses", from New American Bible:

See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

I hope that clarifies the Catholic meaning of "porneia."

Paul

Paul replied:
" ... and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus ... "

Dear Paul:
I can not refrain from expressing amusement that you perfectly fit the Orthodox stereotype of Protestants and Catholics by answering with the opinions of modern scholars to the total exclusion of the the Church Fathers!

That said, because this is a forum hosted by Catholics, I will not engage in apologetics for Orthodoxy; I answered a direct question about the Orthodox position, and did so as neutrally as I know how to.

Photius, Reader

Dear Photius,

I admit my education in patristics is next to zero. I find the Fathers very hard to understand except for brief quotations.

The Cathecism of the Catholic Church cites the Church Fathers, but one needs a companion work to read the texts. I do not have the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils reference book for the CCC.

I welcome you to show me the words of the Fathers on divorce and remarriage.

Paul

Reader Photius-

The Latin is:



Which is translated in the Douay-Rheims as:



My Latin hain't too good, but the Latin word in question I believe is "duxerit".

I feel it's probably a bit more than "Vulgate versus various Greek texts", and the Eastern catholic FAQ has a bit of discussion on this:

http://www.east2west.org/discus/messages/7/38.html?1057092071

Marc the (Latin and Greek ignorant) Roman

St. John Chrysostom:

" 'What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her."

{On Matthew, 62:1 (A.D. 370), in NPNF1,X:382}

Paul

RomanRedneck,

It would appear that it might be easier to get an annulment.

Dan L

the catholic view of marriage gives a whole new meaning to that southern term: "it's cheaper to keep her"!

Thanks for the responses folks.

Jason

Photius,

Hosted by us (well, by our dear Ruthenian Administrator, actually), but not at all adverse to apologetics civilly propounded - and not demanding of neutrality, that I'm aware. As John is quick to point out, it's now intended to be a pan-Eastern forum, not an exclusively Eastern Catholic forum, some of the text on the site notwithstanding.

While I'm certainly not empowered to state Forum policy, I think I've come to understand it well these past couple of years. Triumphalism and "you're all faithless heretics, doomed to hell" are verboten, regardless of who is pronouncing the anathemas. From my experience, the requirements boil down to charity and respect for the beliefs of others - and those apply equally to Catholics and Orthodox. We oft must agree to disagree, but there's a way to do it (and I'd say you adhere well to the model ).

In many respects, it's what I and many others see as the uniqueness of this Forum - it's a level playing field, for discussion, sometimes debate, but still a community - bound by a commonality of love for the Eastern and Oriental expressions of Christianity.

That said, let me ask you about the (admittedly rare) situations in which widowed Orthodox clergy have been allowed to remarry when there were young children involved. (It's been quite some time since I've heard mention of it; the last instance I recollect may have involved the Antiochians, but I wouldn't swear to that).

In your experience, is the exercise of this oekonomia seen as aberrant or acceptable to mainstream Orthodoxy? I also suspect that it may be a phenomenon that's limited to the diaspora, as opposed to something that a hierarch would even consider in the "Old Country". Your thoughts (or those of any other of my Orthodox brothers and sisters)?

Many years,

Neil

> That said, let me ask you about the (admittedly rare) situations
> in which widowed Orthodox clergy have been allowed to remarry
> when there were young children involved. (It's been quite some
> time since I've heard mention of it; the last instance I
> recollect may have involved the Antiochians, but I wouldn't
> swear to that).

> In your experience, is the exercise of this oekonomia seen as
> aberrant or acceptable to mainstream Orthodoxy? I also suspect
> that it may be a phenomenon that's limited to the diaspora, as
> opposed to something that a hierarch would even consider in the
> "Old Country". Your thoughts (or those of any other of my
. Orthodox brothers and sisters)?

Neil,
I have never heard of such a thing, and although I am outside of the mainstream of American Orthodoxy, I feel safe in saying that probably anyone knowledgeable of the Canons or traditions of the Church would be scandalized by such a thing.

There are two serious problems with this particular situation:

1) The prescription that deacons and bishops not be bigamists is in the New Testament, making it a much weightier requirement than a canon.

2) The Church has never allowed priests to marry and to continue functioning as priests; the same, almost, is so for deacons, although there seem to have been some exceptions in the first couple centuries of the Church because there are canons condemning the practices.

If such a thing did happen, I'd be surprised it didn't make quite a sensation; it may be a few steps shy of ordaining a woman, but still ranks with those things for which the Holy Canons order both the ordainer and ordained be deposed (or, in this case, the re-married and the permitting hierarch be deposed). Even in this day and age where anything seems to go, and perhaps this did happen, the remarried cleric would be recognized few places outside his own diocese.

Certain things are simply illicit, always, and for such things oekonomia versus akrivia is simply not a relevant concept

I'm happy to comment more verbosely when I have more time, after Pascha begins.

Type to you later,
Photius

I have been monitoring this thread, and I have to say something of my experience early in my priesthood when I sat as secretrary to the Ecclesiastical Court of the Metropolis. First, there have been instances of clergy remarriage that have been permitted. THe most recent case involves an Antiochian priest within the past 16 years. I do not feel comfortable mentioning his name, but rest assured it was only permitted with the blessing of the patriarch and signed off by the entire Holy Synod. He continues to serve his archdiocese faithfully in a rather large parish. There were also cases after the second war in Europe when both Orthodox and Eastern Cathloics had to deal with this issue, due to deaths from that horrible time. They were allowed to function as priests in parishes, but were removed from any teaching or adminstrative duties of the diocese or metropolis.

To make a blanket statement that these marriages are illicit, carries a tone that you are better versed than those who have had to study and by the grace of God apply them in accordance to the gospel. The canons are a guide, and in some cases addressing a particular situation and circumstance. This is were oeconmia comes in, to work within the spirit of the canon, but show the love of forgiveness our Savior taught.

There have been cases were clergy taking the actions for one for granted did not wait for a resolution of the permission to marry, which requires that the priest or deacon wishing to enter the second marriage, not only supply all of the textual agruments for such a dispensation, but must appear before the Holy Synod and the partiarch for an investigation and questioning session with his wife to be and the priest's children. Then the matter is deliberated upon and they are notified by the next session of the Holy synod. I believe the priest is to relieved of all duties at this time and not function as a priest. When the desicion is made know to him, he will resume his priestly office after the second marriage is blessed. If they do not follow this procedure strictly and wait for the published findinggs, they will be "defrocked". I have seen such cases also.

When the occasion came about in the late 1980's with the Antiochian priest, another Orthodox body removed this priest from teaching in their theological institutions, and caused a severe strain between both groups that lasted several years. Now most have forgotten the matter.

In case of divorce among the laity, different things have to be considered in the proceedings. Adultery, sexual disfunction, bigamy are all ground for divoce with out a problem. Unfortunately today, through our legal system we have introduce reasons for divorce that were not even considered in times of old. Inreconcilable differences is notgrounds for a church divorce, niether is apostacy, or the inability to provide an icome. This causes church courts more time, trying to find some thread of a canonical reason for a divorce within the parameters of civil divorce. Different papers have written on the subject, but having them implimented to replace the rules of canon now in place, would take a great council. Remember the canons we are talking about have face no revisions in almost 1200 years, and need to be updated desperately and codified, much like Rome did in 1917, and then again more recently. In speaking with an expert on Eastern Catholic and Roman Canon Law, Chorbishop John Faris at a conference he presented at, it was interesting to find how was able to bring the new codes in to instances and make them seem more authritave since most historic refernces have been relegated to the footnotes. I have copies of his papers he presented (gifts for a conference that we both truly learned much in this subject area), and was able to spend time in learning how canon law that oringinally started from the same source has evolved, one that is stagnant, and one that is relevant to the time and people we serve. We have not even touched on those that had a prior civil marriage and divorce and then enter the church for the sacrament. Is it to be considered a first marriage or second? Many scenarios can be played out, and the canons be quite unclear in these matters.

I carefully suggest Photius, before using word "never" or "illicit", please question those that have experience in handling such matters. They may be rare cases, and the church would like to continue that for the sake of stability. These are cases that very few have ever had to handle, and no hierarch would want to be known for handling it unless he felt he has a truly special case and his loss would be a major loss not only to the diocese but the church as a whole.

I pray that these exceptions that I mentioned stay that, exceptions, and let the clergy chose wisely and carefully for those that they wish to share in their ministry. When two are trly committed to the service of God, that is a genuine priestly marriage that will never have to be a consideration in discussion like this.

I know i may have put a monkey wrench in to this discussion, but as I taught by a priest discussing patristics and canon law, what appears to be black and white, is reality tones of gray and the an absence of color. Maybe it is time to put some color back into the laws, that will be more understandable for those of us that have to study it and be able to give the advice that is needed when called upon.

I ask for the forgiveness of all. I am in Holy Week this week, and trying to spend the time preparing to bring forth the Light of Christ, Even though I have a funeral on Wednesday, I feel the special time and grace that come in renewing our spirits this week. I pray that all will find that grace as we prpare and witness holy week culminating with the appearnce of the light of Christ, who should be our focus now and forever.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

One more thing comes to mind regarding this matter, and that is the life of Saint Augustine, and his life prior to ordination. Today by judging strictly from the sense of the canons we have in place, the great saint would not have been permitted to enter priestly orders. We would have been following the rule book strictly would have dperived the church of a saint that has given us so much by the way of his writings.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Photios,

I can understand your reaction, but the reality is, as Father Antony has indicated, that such events have occurred (I believe that he and I are recollecting the same instance, as the facts he suggests are consonant with those I remember and I concur with his thoughts on not naming the presbyter involved, lest any who know him and are unaware of the events be tempted to judging).

Like Father Antony, I think that one needs must consider the charity - not merely oekonomia - involved in taking such a matter under consideration. While adherence to the Canons is an admirable goal and one that should be encouraged, it must also be remembered that the Canons are of man and charity is of God. The kind of circumstances that might allow of such an exception to the canonical norm would likely never have come about in the age when the Canons were crafted. That was a time of villages that were extended familial conclaves and a widowed priest with young children would have had readily available to him what would, today, be referred to as a support system. In this modern time, such are rarely present, other than through those devised and operated as societal mechanisms (e.g., daycare, homemakers); that, however, does not obviate the need. In an exercise of the charity that God has commended to us, there may well be instances in which some Canons must be examined in the light of the time, place, and circumstances in regard to which they were formulated, with questions appropriately raised as to their immutability in the exercise of charity.

Many years,

Neil