www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Catholic view of the permanency of marriage?

I have to agree with you, Memo.

I agree with the RC doctrine that a valid marriage can never be ended until one spouse dies. That's the doctrine... however, I agree with you that in practice annullments are (in my opinion) used to allow people to divorce and remarry.

"Vatican officials estimate that in 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available, about 70 percent of all annulment requests were made in the United States. Worldwide, more than 56,000 Catholics requested annulments; 46,000 were granted. "Requests have jumped enormously in the last decades," said Bishop Velasio De Paolis, a Vatican court official. As recently as 1968, fewer than 350 annulments were granted in the United States." URL = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9165-2005Feb8.html

I'm surprised the total number worldwide was that low. Doesn't surprise me that 82% of those who requested one got one.

Well, I will say that there is one practical difference. It is this. There are a large number of Catholic couples (Roman and Byzantine) living in sin and in fornication (though with invincible ignorance, perhaps) and with illegitimate children.

From personal experience, I can tell you that when I was in the hospital, several years ago, with severe depression and was suicidal, our melkite priest assured my wife that if she wanted to leave me, that she would have no problem getting an annulment. After all, I had some mental illness that didn't manifest itself until into a few years into our marriage. How was she supposed to know that I was a nuttcase and ineligible to be married?

Now, here is the irony. St. Paul clearly allows for the dissolution of a marriage between a christian and a non-christian, yet Rome thinks that even non-Christian mariages are valid and indissoluble. St. Paul says that Christians may remarry, in certain circumstances, only if they marry in the Lord. Yet Rome allows Catholics to marry non-Christians. This is directly opposed to Scripture and Tradition. Indeed, this is one of the issues that caused me to break communion with Rome. The legalism and hypocrisy of Rome basically ruined any trust I had in Rome. At least, the Orthodox are intellectually honest about what is going on. In fact, here is the irony of it all;

In Roman theology; a man decides to get married but he wants to screw around. Later in life, he gets divorced, but tells the church he never intended to be faithful. He gets an annulment and a new, sacamental marriage.

A woman is married to a man and he cheats on her and abandons her. She cannot prove that he never intended to be faithful. She is denied an annulment. She is screwed.

An Orthodox man marries an Orthodox woman. He cheats one her. They divorce. Later, the woman wants to remarry. She is granted an ecclesiastical divorce and is declared innocent. The man is declared guilty. She is given permission to remarry. The man is not.

Now tell me honestly, which is most just?

Joe

I'm sorry, I get a bit angry and touchy when it comes to this topic. But, in my opinion, the theology and practice of Rome has no credibility. The fact is, I know that my marriage could easily be declared null and void according to a Roman tribunal. And how am I supposed to feel about this? What if a Roman Catholic couple comes to think that maybe they weren't sacramentally married? Maybe the bride or groom was harboring doubts? Or maybe one of them was insane? Do they need to get remarried? In my opinion, the Roman theology of marriage makes it impossible to know if one is ever truly married. It is a farce and should be done away with.

Joe

If a valid marriage cannot be ended until the spouse dies, then how can St. Paul offer an exemption to Chistians married to non-Chistians (after all, non-Christian marriages are valid). And how can there be any meaningful distinction between sacramental marriages and valid marriages? The Pauline exemption is a clear refutation of the Roman theology of marriage.

Interestingly enough, the Orthodox Church is more strict than the Roman on this. Any Orthodox who marries an unbaptized person is excommunicated. There are no exception. Permission can be given for a baptized non-Orthodox Christian. Yet Rome allows Catholics to marry Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests, Mormons, etc. How can they do this? How can any Mormon allow his or her spouse to raise children in the Catholic religion that they consider to be false?

Joe

Joe,

Thanks for your candid remarks on this subject.


I agree. However, you act as if this isn't the case among EO which is not true. In "Orthodox" countries (ex: Greece, Russia) there are lots of "ethnically" Orthodox people -- people who were baptized and chrismated, went to church as children, and quit going in their adult years. Once they hit the adult years (like in the Catholic church) they quit going to Church and act like the rest of the world including sexual sins. I'm not saying "most" Orthodox people do this - only saying that many (again just like in our Catholic church) do. I left the Catholic church to be EO for 1.5 years and later returned - while EO I became aware of the above.


Can you provide scriptural references? I'm curious to understand better both Catholic and EO views on this subject. I'll take your objection to my spiritual father and ask about this.


Again can you provide the scriptural references? Both points are good ones, and I'm curious to see the Catholic perspective on this.

JSMelkiteOrthodoxy:

You've obviously put a lot of thought into these issues. So, I'm hoping you'll be able (and willing) to answer some questions about the EO perspective on these things. I'm not looking for an "argument" at all - really just wanting to know for sure the EO perspective rather than assume / presume that I know.

So...

Q1: The rule about only being allowed 3 marriages: does this apply when all the spouses die of natural causes? For example, I know a man who has been married 3 times and his 3rd wife recently died. I think if he were EO he would not be allowed to marry again - is this true? If so, why since he did nothing wrong?

Q2: Since in EO a 1st and 2nd marriage are both viewed to be sacramental... how does the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage end? By the civil divorce or by the EO church itself when it grants the "church divorce"? If the latter is the reason because the O. church sees itself as the keeper of the mysteries and as it can confer marriage it can take away the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage, too? I think a similar thing happens when a priest or bishop is deposed -- afterwards he simply is a layman and not an ordained clergyman at all (the sacrament of ordination has been removed) -- are there other sacraments that can be removed?

Q3: The rule about allowing divorce and remarriage for a sickness like tuberculosis or leprosy: so even if the sick partner did anything wrong then the other can still be givne a church divorce and permission to remarry? to abandon their sick partner and remarry? I'm thinking I must misunderstand something.

I'm hoping these questions don't anger you. Really, there is much about Orthodoxy that I respect -- not trying to 'desparage' it at all. I'm asking the above because I'm hoping the answers will give me a good understanding of how the EO see these issues. If you'd rather not answer the questions, do you know a good O. priest who I could e-mail and ask?

Thanks,

Eric

CORRECTION: I meant to say

Dear Joe,

This is funny!




THIS is, in fact, the problem of Orthodoxy. I already mentioned this in a previous post, by writing:



The whole case of Orthodoxy and marriage amounts to this: How can a marriage be real and yet not sacramental? Can there ever be a marriage that is not a sacrament?


By the way, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I left the Roman Church half a year ago and am slowly making my way to Orthodoxy.

Yours.

When I was married my wife & I left RC to be EO. There was no pressure for us to have a sacramental marriage at all (we had been married as Protestants before becoming RC and the RC had never "blessed" our marriage). In every way we were treated as married. The priest did not treat us as living in sin, etc. Yet he affirmed we did not have a sacramental marriage. So clearly there seems to be the concept in Orthodoxy of being married but not necessarily sacramentally married.

It is my understanding that just as Adam and Eve were legitimately married (as well as Abraham and Sarah, et. al.), so any couple who marries outside the Church but otherwise obeys God's laws regarding the permanence of marriage, responsibility for children, etc. does indeed have a "real" marriage, even though it does not enjoy the graces that are available through being blessed by the Church.

May God bless you in your journey, and may you always follow His light!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joe and all,

I'm not interested in an argument at all. The following are at the level of principle:

1) In the Roman Catholic Church there is theology of marriage (e.g. Casti Connubii, Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, Summa Theologiae) and then there is canon law which regulates actual marriages. In the normal course of things, the parish priest instructs the parties before the marriage and conducts the marriage ritual. The Catholic Church teaches that the two spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage (by virtue of their consent). The priest and others are official witnesses.

2) A general rule is that "marriage between Christians is a sacrament". By Christian is meant a person who is validly baptized. If a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic, the non-Catholic must be informed of the obligations of marriage in the doctrine of the Church, and agree to abide by them and to agree to allow the children, if any, to be raised as Catholics. (This is the principle vis-a-vis protestants; I'm not sure if it applies vis-a-vis Orthodox.) Then the bishop must be informed and he will grant a dispensation from the ordinary prohibition of same.

There is a similar prohibition regarding non-Christians, which would apply if the person wishes to marry say, a Jew or a Muslim. Same principles, "technically" different dispensation by the Bishop.

3)
The presumption in law is that the marriage is valid. In order to get an annulment of the marriage, evidence supporting an argument against this presumption must be presented and accepted by an ecclesiastical tribunal.

This is what is supposed to happen, and what does happen when the Roman Rota gets involved. What happens in particular dioceses may be "shadier" (connotations intended), as the recent announcement about the Kennedys reminds us.

4)
The exception in Canon Law which is based on what St. Paul actually said in 1 Cor 7:12-16 is made in favor of the Faith. Its main applicability is to pagans. It was used in the last half-dozen centuries or so in places like Africa. If a married person wishes to become Christian, but the other spouse does not and is unwilling to let the convert practice the Faith consistently, or wishes to get a divorce because of the conversion, then the Church can dispense from that presumably valid marriage for the sake of the salvation of the converting spouse.

BTW, I think you ought to read the actual words of St. Paul here, since he sees this as a last resort, rather than a preferred "strategy", and as far as I know, missionaries take the same approach with converts. In other words, even St. Paul has no problem regarding marriage between "pagans" as valid, and potentially sacramental, if both spouses decide to consent to it.

I just offer this as clarification of the RC principles.

Michael,

If then, the Church can dispense with an otherwise valid marriage "in favor of the faith," then it is clear that marriages are not absolutely indisoluble. By the way, I was asked to provide scripture for my interpretation of Paul. Here is the passage from 1 Corinthians 7:

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you�although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs�how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world�how he can please his wife� 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world�how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin�this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.[b]

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is�and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

By the way, the permission to divorce was given by God to Moses and it is in the Torah. Now, the permission was because of the hardness of heart, but this doesn't change the fact that it is in the Torah of God. So, God can permit Israel (the Church) to set aside marriages. The Church is the dispenser of the sacraments and binds and looses, not some "natural law." This is also why I think that the Roman Church has difficulties dealing with these issues of divorce and annulments, because they view the couple as the ministers of the sacrament, rather than the priest.

Joe

And here is the command from St. Paul, that Christians are not permitted to mary non-Christians,

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is�and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

This is why the Orthodox Church excommunicates those who attempt to marry an unbaptized person. The Roman Catholic Church used to do the same.

Joe

A good point. I'm going to ask my priest about this.