Divorce and Remarriage: A Speculative Pastoral Solution
It doesn’t take much to see that marriage, as a social institution, is undergoing great changes. While this should not be a surprise, since everything changes, adapting to those changes without losing our beliefs about the sacred nature of sacramental marriage is an important concern for modern Catholics. To deal with these changes, one of the most important things to do is to look at how Catholics have dealt with the situation in other times and places, because in doing so, we might find a way to help people who need the help, guidance, and acceptance of the Church. What I offer here are just some thoughts I have on the matter, with the focus being divorce and remarriage, and a way we might want to examine the issue. It is speculative. While I believe what I offer might be fruitful, I could be wrong. If I am, and if you have some other ideas, please let me know.
When dealing with marriage, the first thing we have to deal with is the difference between sacramental and non-sacramental marriages. Catholics are supposed to have sacramental marriages, while non-Catholics, obviously, will not. With sacramental marriages we have a few givens which cannot be rejected. First, a sacramental marriage is a vehicle of grace for the couple. Second, like the sacrament of orders, once the validity of a marriage is determined, the sacramental seal cannot be broken.[1] Thirdly, one can have only one sacramental marriage at a time.[2]
However, the Christian tradition has been able to acknowledge non-sacramental marriages as being valid marriages, so that those who are married in a non-sacramental sense, do not sin when sharing in the natural fruits of marriage. That is, Christianity does not view non-Christian married people are living in sin. This point is important for pastoral concerns — those who convert and are married, do not have to end their marriages, especially if only one of the married couple converts.
This ability to acknowledge non-sacramental marriages is an important part of the Orthodox tradition’s “acceptance” of divorce and remarriage. For the East, there is only one sacramental marriage. However, the East has seen the pastoral necessity of accepting that even some of those marriages do not last, and end in the couple splitting and divorcing. Such people can still remarry, but only in a non-sacramental sense, and such marriages are seen within the light of human frailty and penance instead of the joy of the sacraments. Those who also remarry after their spouse dies are also said to be in a similar situation as the divorcee. Though they can remarry, it will not be seen as sacramental. The East puts a limit to the number of times one can marry to three times — to make sure that pastoral concerns are not sanctions for abuse. This acceptance of remarriage is seen as an economic condescension to the needs of the people — it is better not to marry again, though as with the case of marriage, it is better to be in marriage than to live in sin. Divorce is seen to be the result of sin, but one which can be dealt with in penance and sacramental grace through penance and communion.
If one takes the proper understanding of sacramental marriage and add to it the Eastern understanding of divorce and remarriage, we would seem to end up with the possibility of accepting a kind of polygamy. We could have one who is sacramentally married to one person, divorced from them, and married in a non-sacramental way to another. Is this acceptable? In the sense that it works for the East, and it has a long history of practice, and it seems to work, the answer appears to be yes. It is not ideal, but it certainly is pastoral. And, if we look further into the Church’s history with marriage, we will find the Church has given dispensations to converts who are in polygamous marriages, to allow them to remain in such a marriage, usually for the sake of the women involved (to make sure they remain taken care of by their husband).[3] Scripture itself does present us with polygamy as a possibility.
In the light of the modern worldly situation, where divorce is common, the Eastern approach should be examined by the Catholic Church and taken seriously as a possibility. Many Catholics, good Catholics, find themselves in a difficult situation when their spouse enters an adulterous affair, divorces them, and leaves them wanting. They are lonely and desire companionship, and find the umarried life difficult. There should be a better pastoral way of dealing with them than just telling them “hold out.” Yes, if they can, it is best. But what about those who cannot? I think we need to work for their own salvation, to provide dispensations for them, just as dispensations were given in the past, and just like dispensations are given in the Eastern tradition. These dispensations are not a rejection of the inviolate nature of sacramental marriage, but the recognition of non-sacramental marriage remains a possibility, and one which does not have to end in sin. We could be honest and call it polygamy, but point out the unique nature of this form of polygamy: it would insist that once one is divorced from someone (from a sacramental or non-sacramental marriage), marital relations are forbidden with that person. In the case of a sacramental marriage, it would be similar to the situation with laicized priests, where the sacrament remains, but it is not to be lived out. Nonetheless, if we do this, I think it would help deal with a large group of Catholics who want to be faithful who have, nonetheless, divorced. They are a group which need ministered to, and we need to think beyond the ways we have done so, to acknowledge them and their ability to remain in the Body of Christ.
[1] Of course, that is, as long as both of the married partners are alive. There is a considerable debate as to the state of marriage in regards to death.
[2] And perhaps only one sacramental marriage.
[3] As it was a dispensation, it was not seen as automatic, and it was not given out too often.
Comments are closed.
“Catholics are supposed to have sacramental marriages, while non-Catholics, obviously, will not.”
Catholics aren’t the only ones with sacramental marriages. Any marriage between two baptized persons whether Catholic or not is sacramental (unless it’s otherwise invalid).
“Those who also remarry after their spouse dies are also said to be in a similar situation as the divorcee. Though they can remarry, it will not be seen as sacramental.”
I don’t think this is a sound principle that we want to follow. Marriage is until death and not after. Widows and widowers should not be considered divorcees.
“We could have one who is sacramentally married to one person, divorced from them, and married in a non-sacramental way to another. Is this acceptable?”
A person in a sacramental marriage that has conjugal relations with another is violating an existing sacramental bond. The words of Jesus to the Pharisees seem to be completely indistinguishable on this point.
“it would be similar to the situation with laicized priests, where the sacrament remains, but it is not to be lived out.”
It would be different from the laicized priest, because the laicized priest isn’t doing anything inherently inconsistent with his sacrament, whereas conjugal relations with someone other than one’s sacramental spouse is inconsistent with the sacrament.
“once one is divorced from someone (from a sacramental or non-sacramental marriage), marital relations are forbidden with that person”
So not only may they have marital relations with someone else, they can’t have marital relations with their sacramental spouse. This is a double denial of the sacrament.
Any marriage between two baptized persons whether Catholic or not is sacramental (unless it’s otherwise invalid). Not true. Hence, Orthodox second and third marriages. More importantly, most non-Catholic, Christian marriages do not have sacramental character. And then there is the East/West debate as to what makes the marriage a sacrament — for the East, the priest confers the sacrament on the couple, and this was the traditional approach long before any schism.
I don’t think this is a sound principle that we want to follow.
And yet it is done in the East, and I know Eastern Catholics who have the non-sacramental marriage ceremony, who happened to be widows or widowers. The question of whether or not it ends with death has not been answered, and you will find theologians saying either. I tend to think it is like orders myself.
A person in a sacramental marriage that has conjugal relations with another is violating an existing sacramental bond. Then how do you explain the fact that there was acceptance of polygamy in the early Church. Now, if you were to be a leader like a bishop, you could only have been married up to once — but on the other hand, this wasn’t said about non-bishops, and indeed, if you explore history, you will find such dispensations.Much of what people think of marriage is a discipline of late development, and this is why there is a divergence of East and West, because both established their tradition post schism based upon pre-schism practices.
It would be different from the laicized priest, because the laicized priest isn’t doing anything inherently inconsistent with his sacrament, whereas conjugal relations with someone other than one’s sacramental spouse is inconsistent with the sacrament.
You are thinking discipline.
So not only may they have marital relations with someone else, they can’t have marital relations with their sacramental spouse. This is a double denial of the sacrament.
It’s not a denial of the sacrament. You confuse discipline with the sacramental nature.
I have nothing to base this on but idle speculation, but I think that the Christian theology of marriage is generally underdeveloped and I can foresee major developments in this doctrine. This is especially true as our society becomes less and less reliant on the social constructs of the past; Marriage, in some sense, is a holdover from a time when is was a necessary social construct for economic survival. Imperfect marriages which were entered into without full consent and were held to be binding (and perceived as sacramental), even those filled with abuse were still incredulously perceived as sacramental – much of this out of necessity. Ironically, in today’s society, the understanding of the true relational nature of marriage seems to generally understood only by those in marriage tribunals who oversee annulments. I remember one priest mentioning that he thinks the vast majority of marriages in the Christian community are invalid – not without grace, as the Church presumes validity – but certainly invalid, and I tend to agree with him.
Regardless, I still think we have a very mathematical view of marriage that does require some re-interpretation. A lot of imperfect marriages are tolerated, to the detriment of those in the relationship. I’m not convinced that labels of polygamy are helpful as they play into the idea of marriage as a state of being rather than a relation. If marriage can be interpreted in a more relational context, I think a lot of the pastoral problems evaporate. Not to say that it isn’t a very complex issue requiring care and distinction, but I don’t think we need to create a complex system of labels to try and fit a square peg into a round hole.
Dan
The thing I would raise back to your comment is this: why would polygamy not be a relational issue? Couldn’t it still be used to designate the situation of the modern marriage enterprise? I know there is a natural gut reaction against the term, it has been socialized into us, and I know sacramentally why it is invalid (Bride/Christ); on the other hand, I also know that non-sacramental marriage has allowed it, even in Scripture, and dispensations have been given in history, so there is more room for it than people realize.
So not only may they have marital relations with someone else, they can’t have marital relations with their sacramental spouse. This is a double denial of the sacrament.
I think this is part of the misunderstanding. The martial act is not equivalent to “the sacrament”. The sacrament encompasses a whole relational context. That being said, I do agree with your premise that this is a problematic scenario.
Henry’s “in a similar situation as the divorcee” is not remotely the same as “considered a divorcee.”
And isn’t it about time to stop reflexively holding divorcees and couples in “irregular” relationships in contempt? I find it more troublesome when a couple with children but unmarried (i.e.: “living in sin,” “shacked up,” “fornicators,” and all those other terms of contempt) split up. Their shame and the non-sacramentality of their relationship makes it even harder for them, who most need it, to receive the pastoral care they need as a couple and as a family.
Looking at our own attitudes, how much of our reaction to divorce and remarriage, or even widowing and remarriage, has nothing to do with faith, but is really a projection of our desire for our family of origin to be perpetuated safely into eternity?
1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”107
‘Nuff said. Vows are vows, regardless of the faithfulness of one spouse. Yes it is a sad situation but what is being advocated here is heresy.
And yet, it points out divorce is a concession, which is exactly what dispensation /economia is about. Now, more importantly, show us where, in official teachings, what has been said here (with the nod to the Orthodox views of marriage) is heresy? Show where Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) concept is heresy. What you quoted doesn’t.
It’s amazing when people make the charge, without recognizing who they have just declared to be heretics (contrary to the Church itself — the Church does not view the Orthodox as heretics).
The thing I would raise back to your comment is this: why would polygamy not be a relational issue? Would couldn’t it still be used to designate the situation of the modern marriage enterprise?
There are two problems I see with the term: First, I wouldn’t equate polygamy with sequential monogamous relationships. Second, this term reduces the marriage context to purely sexual terms. From a relational aspect, sexuality is only one aspect of a much broader context of marriage and sacramentality. While I agree with your premise that there is precedent to use the term in this context, I think it is counterproductive and only exacerbates the misunderstanding of the nature of the marriage sacrament.
I know sacramentally why it is invalid (Bride/Christ);
If what you are postulating is true, it by necessity negates the argument above.
on the other hand, I also know that non-sacramental marriage has allowed it, even in Scripture, and dispensations have been given in history, so there is more room for it than people realize.
The whole area is much grayer than people realize. There are dispensations for not only divorce and polygamy, but also adultery (i.e. Abraham). The question becomes – are these really dispensations, or is our understanding of marriage fundamentally stunted?
Dan,
There are two kinds of marriages being discussed, one which is “natural” and one which is “sacramental.” The natural marriage is not living in sin despite it not being sacramental. It is on the level of the natural marriage which I find polygamy (in various forms) being allowed in some form of economic dispensation. Sacramental union is special – and is a different issue.
I do think, as a whole, our “understanding of marriage is fundamentally stunted.” And the best way to show this is that different theological positions, contradictory positions, are found in the East and the West on marriage. I tend to think the East helps with some of its distinctions here. Concubines are another issue, of course.
One of the issues which I think is valid is to look at it within the concept of the dignity of the human person. Divorce, polygamy, etc have been known to lead to abuse and harm women in historical situations, and I think that is the primary motive the Church had in establishing its historical disciplines. The fact that lack of divorce now leads to abuse (in some situations) also should be seen and used for further reflection.
I said “Any marriage between two baptized persons whether Catholic or not is sacramental (unless it’s otherwise invalid).” Henry said “Not true. . . . most non-Catholic, Christian marriages do not have sacramental character.”
This is simply not true. Catholic canon law considers a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians to be sacramental, unless as I said it is otherwise invalid and therefore not a marriage at all. Your information is erroneous. If you continue to hold otherwise, prove your assertion that non-Catholic Christian marriages aren’t sacramental (which you assert in your original post) by citing an authority for it other than yourself.
Bonaventure
The fact that a large number of annulments are done in relation to Protestant converts represents the fact that, when investigated, the lack of sacramental unity is there. The fact that they understand marriage significantly different, and not a sacrament, leads to many impediments. And would you assert that Orthodox second marriages are sacramental?
Moreover, which Canon Law? Canon Law is itself an issue of discipline. Eastern Canon law, for example does not recognize marriage as sacramental UNLESS it is given by the priest.
“And yet, it points out divorce is a concession”
Where?
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
“And yet, it points out divorce is a concession”
Where?
Well, what you quoted:
1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.
Now you do realize, for example, for an annulment to be accepted, there has to be civil divorce? Your use of CCC is pick and choose and ignores a whole range of issues –it is not saying, for example, the patriarchs are adulterers for having more than one wife. The issue of adultery does come into play, but there are more issues than a simple protestant-like quoting of the CCC. You have to actually interpret what is being said in context, not just within the catechism, but church tradition, and also understand the different values of each catechism statement are not of the same level of teaching authority. Some are discussions of current discipline.
And finally, once again, I have pointed out the immorality of divorce.
Adultery any way you look at it. Semantics makes everything right. Everyday I am confirmed in my decision to leave the Catholic Church which encourages adultery hidden as “living as brother and sister” even in the face of valid, sacrament.
The Orthodox are even worse, but more honest in their whoring.
Your idea is an obscenity and scandalous!
Code of Canon Law 1055 Ҥ1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.”
“this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament” Catechism of the Catholic Church 1601, and again in 1625, 1640, 1660
If you mean that marriages between two non-Catholic Christians are often recognized as null, the reason for nullity isn’t that the marriages weren’t sacramental; it was that they weren’t marriages at all. Do you know the difference between the validity of a marriage (whether it occured without obstacle and was indeed a marriage, either sacramental or not) versus the sacramentality of a marriage (whether it is a sacrament between two baptized, or a valid but merely natural not supernatural bond)?
A second marriage by Orthodox Christians would be sacramental if it were a valid marriage; but if one of them is already in a sacramental marriage then the second marriage isn’t a marriage at all, so by that fact it isn’t a sacrament.
Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) number 776:
“2. From the institution of Christ a valid marriage between baptized persons is by that very fact a sacrament, by which the spouses, in the image of an indefectible union of Christ with the Church, are united by God and, as it were, consecrated and strengthened by sacramental grace.”
Bonaventure — You are misreading the Canon. Look further and come back when you find out who the minister of the sacrament is in the East. This is fundamental to Eastern conception of marriage. Second, you are misreading canons, which are often disciplines, and putting them beyond the value they are worth, hence, the Orthodox do not have sacramental second marriages, and the priest does not confer sacramental status to the marriage. And the Eastern theology of marriage, which is recognized as valid, while requiring consent, does not engage the post-schism Western notion of the “couple gives the sacrament to each other.” This is a late concept, while in the Patristic time, there was the recognition of civil marriage as being without sin, but not being sacramental. This remains the case in the East, even if some Latinizations are put in the Latinized Eastern Code of Canon Law which make one unfamiliar with Eastern theology to this it is the case in the East. This is actually a major issue on the sacrament of marriage which most do not understand (and it is clear, you have not studied it, and you are just picking a few items out of context).
Mr. Karlson:
Full 1614:
1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”107
Who is selectively quoting?
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”176
If divorce is immoral then sanctioning it is a sin. The Church does not teach error.
Colin
So, was Moses sanctioning a sin? Again, the problem you have, as with Bonaventure, is one of understanding ecclesial documents, such that you would have to propose that Moses, and the law, promoted sin. Is this your claim? Obviously not. And the rest of what you state has yet to deal with what I actually have said, nor does it show an understanding of what a dispensation is within the context of canon law. Thus, for example, even Jesus gave “save for adultery” and there is the “Pauline Privilege” which, you would have to also say, is sin to follow. And, if you look up “Petrine Privilege” you might see an example of dispensation which also allows a dissolution of marriage. Nonetheless, since Pauline and Petrine have to do with non-sacramental marriage, this also points to the distinction which is being discussed — that a non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved. On the other hand, I have affirmed a sacramental one cannot be removed, which if you read the post, you would have seen. Nonetheless, this does not mean one cannot get a civil divorce; indeed, it is required if one believes the marriage failed the sacramental standard and looks for an annulment. Even if it turns out to be sacramental, the civil divorce does not, in itself, become a sin.
Mr. Karlson:
“Was Moses sacntioning a sin?”
Yup. That’s why Jesus had to restate the original intention. The Old law allowed for slavery, etc. The old Jewish law was the codification of the moral law, as such the Jewish law was revised continuously.
The word “adultery” in your quote is more ambigious. The original Greek is “unchasity.” This is generally understood to refer to the concept of an annulment, where the marriage is not valid to a preexisting impediment.
Petrine privilege only applies to non-Christians. And Civil divorce only refers to how the couple is viewed within the context of society. A couple is still married even if divored civilly.
“This ability to acknowledge non-sacramental marriages is an important part of the Orthodox tradition’s “acceptance” of divorce and remarriage.”
Orthodox are Christians, yet embrace divorce (recognizing that divorce is evil, which is an inherintly contradictaory position).
If the discussion is confined to non-Christians, then I don’t think there is a disagreement here. Inviting Christians into the context removes to possibility of divorce.
“We could have one who is sacramentally married to one person, divorced from them, and married in a non-sacramental way to another. Is this acceptable?”
No. The resulting union is adultery. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox embraces a contradictory position on marriage does not make it ok.
Colin,
You are now making things up as you go on. Not only have you now just said the law sanctioned sin, your claims about the Greek is ludicrous. Where did you study Greek? You need a refund.
Yes, Petrine privilege applies to non-Christians, but as you said, marriage, even outside of Christianity, is meant to be forever without separation, and any allowance for dissolution is sin. Here is dissolution allowed. Orthodox are Christians, but also not heretics. Your position on marriage would lead to the Church ignoring a heresy with the Orthodox, but the Church consistently says they do not hold to heresy. The fact you will accuse people of heresy quickly shows you do not understand what heresy actually is, and you put yourself in an authority you do not have.
Nonetheless, now you accept non-Christians can divorce and dissolve their marriages. Will that mean you will rethink your claim about the Law (THE LAW) sanctioning sin? Moreover, what exactly is adultery? Polygamy, when accepted, would not be adultery because of marital relations being within the domain of marriage. This is something which you completely neglect in your reading. Sadly, I think you are not responding to the post, nor to the Church’s position, but assumption after assumption which are not found in the Church’s teaching, which is why the Church answers the questions differently than you. You should also study the notion of dispensation.
Mr. Karlson,
I am assuming in good charity that we are talking past each other.
First, you misunderstand my distinction between the old mosaic law and the moral law. Moses allowed for divorce under the Mosaic law, which does not carry infallibility. This was done under the Mosaic law. Jesus pointed back to the original meaning of the law because the law of divorce has so perverted the true meaning of marriage in Jesus’ time (like today).
I’ll withdraw the Greek part as I don’t have time to dig up references.
Finally, it would be nice if you backed up your claims for once. You claim I cite things out of context yet do not demostrate how I am doing so. You simply make the accusation. In fact the one time you quoted something I pointed out the full context of the CCC quote did not support your claim.
Provide evidence that your understanding of the Eastern tradition is correct. Commentary about how that tradition is consistent with the CCC understanding of marriage (which would have the added effect of proving why I’m taking the CCC out of context).
You claim I make assumption after assumption. I have cited the CCC. You have yet to cite anything to back up your assertations. In the interest of fairness, I level the same charge.
Colin
I asked if the law sanctioned sin. You said yes, because it allowed sin (divorce). Then you said it was bad it did this. This is getting close to sounding Marcionite, but I assume it is not what you wish to say, because you have said that the Church would not sanction sin, and yet the Church also allows for dissolution of non-sacramental marriages, which you acknowledged. In this way, it seems you are going all over, and being inconsistent as you do so. I understand how that is possible, because the concepts are difficult, and we are dealing with a sacrament in which its explanation was quite late in development, leading to confusion in the tradition, and seemingly contradictory positions as being accepted in the Church itself. However, your position on the Law of Moses is rather peculiar, and I would suggest you look into it. One could say it is not always to be taken literally, and that would be one thing; but to deny it infallibility? That’s just off.
So you have “Greek parts” and “references” but not actual study of Greek. Fine. Recommendation: read Chrysostom who knew Greek and his discussion of adultery.
As for your quoting the CCC, I have indeed consistently given explanation of how you are abusing it. I am bringing up accepted norms which counter your own use of the CCC. You have said marriage cannot be dissolved then you admit it can be. In other words, your use has already been equivocal, ignoring distinctions between natural and sacramental marriage, and how what is allowed with natural marriage is indeed different — again, something you acknowledged, but if you do, then take that back to my own text. You will see I have said sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. However, I have pointed out, just as a priest cannot remove orders, they can nonetheless be laicized, this shows that there is more to the question than dissolution of a sacrament! This goes with the discussion of second and third marriages as being non-sacramental, while the sacrament itself remains. In the same way we find Patriarchs with multiple natural marriages at one time, without it being a sin, this should give us some leeway for discussion without it being a discussion of adultery. The Church does not, the commentary tradition does not, consider them adulterers! If this is the case, then this opens up the discussion.
I could go further and provide citations, but there are a few things with that, such that most of my books are boxed up, and I have better things to do with my time than to argue with someone who thinks they have the authority to declare heresies and yet can’t get basic things right!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp
While I appreciate the sensitivity to the psychosocial needs of a jilted spouse, by allowing a jilted spouse to remarry, one defacto permits one spouse to abandon the other and remarry. There is no way around this fact.
If one allows only the abandoned spouse to remarry, the only way to permit this is to say that no marriage exists. But if no marriage exists, then the spouse who abandoned the other unjustly is therefore free to marry without impediment.
Henry’s idea would therefore deny the permanence of marriage and make it contingent upon the whim of one of the spouses under the guise of sensitivity to a jilted spouse, when in fact it allows one spouse to unjustly abandon another and contract another marriage without any penalty.
Doug,
It does not deny the permanence of marriage. Once again, read what I actually wrote!
Henry, I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing anymore. I am making the simple point that any valid marriage between two baptized Christians is a sacramental, not a mererely natural marriage, in the eyes of the CATHOLIC (Roman and Eastern Catholic) Church. The two Christians don’t have to be Catholics–the Catholic Church still considers their marriage to be sacramental if it is valid. I am not raising the issue of who the minister is. I am not talking about what Eastern Orthodox think about these marriage. I am simply rebutting, with definitive sources, your contention that non-Catholic baptized Christians who get married to each other are not in sacramental marriages according to the eyes of the Catholic Churches. The canons I cite prove that point conclusively. You cite zero sources to prove that the Catholic Church considers any valid marriage between two baptized as not being sacramental. Roman Canon 1055 and Eastern Catholic Canon 776 both say a valid marriage between two baptized is by that fact sacramental. Maybe you have other points to argue. Maybe your other conclusions don’t depend on your assertion that non-Catholic baptized valid marriages aren’t sacramental. That’s not my point. My point, which I have cited chapter and verse in plain language to show, is that any marriage, between two baptized, if it is a valid marriage, is considered by the CATHOLIC Church to also be a sacramental marriage.
Bonaventure
No, your readings do not PROVE what you claim. Part of the problem is equivocation. There can be a valid natural marriage without it being a valid sacramental marriage. That distinction needs to be kept in mind. Just because a marriage might be invalid according to sacramental requirements, however, does not mean the natural requirements may not have been met. That is the issue. Canon law is not so simple as you try to make it out to be, because these kinds of questions are important for interpreting the canons themselves.
Mr. Karlson,
I’m not sure if you are diliberately taking my words out of context or simply do not understand the distinction between the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law. You also confuse my point about backing up my claim. You make the accuastion that I’m reading out of context yet all you have done is make the accusation. Where in your responses do you actually argue WHY I’m taking the quote out of context?
Also, your snide about the Greek is simply juvenile. I graciously withdrew the point as I don’t have time to find the citations. You jumped on me for it.
Finally, that “you have better things to do” than provide citations means your post carries no weight. Your understanding of the Eastern tradtion is in question. Your understanding of how it might reconcilled with the Church is also in doubt. That you won’t support your opinion with any meaningful citations or other links means your opinion has no support. For all we know YOU are the one making things up (despite the fact that you are fond of making the accusation).
I seriously doubt we will get any further in this conversation until you back up your claims. If you want to accuse someone of making things up it be best to shore up your own opinion with valid citations or other credible support.
Colin:
You are saying the Mosaic Law broke the Moral Law… beyond that, people can easily find out, if they want, about Orthodox views of marriage. This isn’t difficult. My understanding is only in question by people who have no background in the matter, and no, it is not always necessary to respond to stupidity — as Augustine often made clear! And your discussion, being all over the place, and speaking absurdly about the Greek, indicates quite well you are talking about an issue you don’t really know.
“My understanding in only in question by people who have no background in the matter…”
So sayth the sudden expert on Eastern Orthodoxy.
Typically I assume I have to prove my point if someone brings a point into dispute. But I guess you are above criticism.
“it is not always necessary to respond to stupidity”
Awesome. I win! Resorting to insult is the last refuge of a losing case.
“and speaking absurdley about the Greek”
Which I withdrew because I wasn’t about to back it up. Which is what you do if you can’t or won’t support points about your argument. You refuse to back up your argument. So I can jsut dismiss your argument.
“you are talking about an issue you don’t really know”
Projection much? :-) For all anyone knows you have no idea what you are saying. Given that you accused me of such why not return the favor? :-)
Awesome. I win! Resorting to insult is the last refuge of a losing case. So I guess St Nicholas lost, St Athanasius lost, St Cyril of Alexandria lost, St Augustine lost, St Jerome lost, et. al., because they “insulted.” Got it. Seriously, you have no clue to “winning” or “losing” either. And you will now say “see, I win again.” No, not at all. You are now saying I am wrong because I have insulted you; that is an ad hominem — an insult isn’t a logical ad homimen, but what you just did is.
LOL!
The funny thing about the saints listed is that they backed up their arguments. You have not. You stated that it should be easy to look up citations. If so then it wouldn’t be too hard to back up your claim with citations then would it?
My point about the insult is that when you have no logical standing you resort to derogatory comments. I simply took it as a sign that you basically admit your opinion has no support. Wasn’t making a logical argument per se. :-)
You refuse to support your point yet continue to hold me to a different standard. When I point out the double standard you insult me. This is an unfortunate tedency of yours. I offer this criticism in the name of better arguments. If you demand much, deliver much.
“My point is that you”
The you is incorrect. I meant to infer a general tendency among blog warriors that when an argument goes bad, there is a general tendency toward insults in lieu of argument.
The “you” in the third paragraph refers to Mr. Karlson. Sorry for multiple posts.
Henry,
I just can’t see how you can square this with Matthew 19. I supose you could interpret the text to read that a man whose wife commits adultery can take another wife. Hence something resembling polygyny might be compatible with the teaching of Jesus, but there seems no room whatever in the tradition anywhere for anything resembling polyandry.
Every example of polygamy in scripture was polygyny.
Yowza. This thread deteriorated quickly. I think the original source material is a worthwhile discussion, but I’m not participating in this mess….
Henry said “No, your readings do not PROVE what you claim. Part of the problem is equivocation. There can be a valid natural marriage without it being a valid sacramental marriage.”
Henry, I wonder if there has been a misunderstanding. What you are saying here IS what I am saying. We may be agreeing.
I am saying, with you, that “there can be a valid natural marriage,” among non-Christians or between a Christian and a non-Christian, “without it being a valid sacramental marriage.”
All I am saying is there cannot be a valid marriage between two baptized persons (Christians) without that marriage “by that fact” also being sacramental in the eyes of the CATHOLIC Church. The canons and Cathechism sections I quote say exactly this (according to the canons I have quoted): “a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.”
I am not denying that non-baptized persons can have valid “natural” marriages. They can.
I am not denying that a Christian can have a valid “natural” marriage with a non-Christian. They can.
I am not denying that two Christians can have a marriage that non-Catholic Churches consider valid and merely natural.
I am not denying that Christians who have a sacramental marriage, then get divorced, are allowed by some non-Catholic Churches to enter marriages, and that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider those marriages sacramental. The Church doesn’t consider those second marriages sacramental because it doesn’t consider them valid.
I am simply saying, quoting Canon 1055, that in the eyes of the Catholic Church, “a valid matrimonial contract CANNOT exist between the baptized without it being BY THAT FACT a sacrament.” (emphasis added)
Please tell me whether we disagree, and if so cite me a source to refute the fact that the Catholic Church means what it says in canon 1055.
Henry, I was glad to read your discussion of the Orthodox treatment of divorce and remarriage. I think you are right that there are things we can learn from this tradition. Am I correct in drawing the conclusion that there aren’t really “annullments” in Orthodox practice, and that they don’t make any pronouncement as to the validity or invalidity of the previous marriage? I think the annullment process is something that troubles and scandalizes a lot of Catholics; maybe we would be better off just to bypass it as the Orthodox Churches seem to.
Melody,
There can be tribunals which will determine there was no valid marriage, if need be, though the issue is far less brought up in the Orthodox world because of their recognition of second and third marriages (as non-sacramental, natural marriages).
Henry, perhaps this would be another fruitful way to understand whether or not we agree, and clarify what position you are taking:
Does the Catholic Church itself believe that a valid marriage CAN exist between the baptized without that marriage also being, by the fact that it is valid, a sacrament?
Or, does the Catholic Church believe that a valid marriage CANNOT exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament?
I am honestly asking your position on this issue. (Not about what the marriage is, but about what the Catholic Church teaches the marriage is.)
Bonaventure,
The canon has to be read with the context of who it written for — and thus, those under its dictates will have different rules for marriage, because they are Catholics, than non-Catholics.
Thus:
http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/marriages/marriages1.htm#11
Here you see baptized non-catholics having a solemn, binding, and sacred, but non-sacramental contract. Again, a natural marriage.
And, to the notion of Catholics being allowed to have non-sacramental marriages, this is also important:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml
Both of these, in their own way, show that baptized Christians (and Catholics) can enter natural, non-sacramental marriages without it being sin. This opens up many avenues of discussion.
You might want to also look at the New Commentary On the Code of Canon Law (Beal, et. al) which also points out that the medieval tradition saw a separation between contract and sacrament, though after Trent, there has been a trend to see them united. But it is also recognized that baptized, who do not desire the “grace” of the sacrament, there comes to the question whether or not the contact is itself valid. The Code comes to the conclusion this is really a serious question which has not been answered.
If we come out with this inconclusive answer due to canon law, perhaps the best thing to do is to once again remember the distinction, and to recognize there is a contract for sacramental and a contract for non-sacramental marriage, and there cannot be a sacramental marriage without a valid sacramental contract, a contract which differs from the non-sacramental marriage. This helps put the Diocese of Lincoln’s response into better perspective. This also shows why canon law is not so simple, and it is not just a simple “here’s the text” reading which is in play. There are questions as to whether or not the canon is of discipline or essence, of distinctions as to who and what is exactly being discussed, etc.
I addressed this issue here, vis a vis the Orthodox:
http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/01/concrete-proposals-vis-vis-orthodox.html
http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/01/alternate-marriage-proposal-from-east.html
The pastoral solution, I think, is not so much recognizing the first marriage as sacramental and the second marriage as a non-sacramental one, but rather being very oikonimically liberal with “annulments” and say that, if it falls apart, the first marriage was a valid natural but non-sacramental marriage by that very fact.
The bureaucratic annulment process need not be necessary, the bishop can look and say, “If it fell apart radically like this, something was obviously wrong at the root” and not need to get any more technical with it.
The “all or nothing” view for Christian marriage (ie, either it is a Sacrament, or isn’t a marriage at all) is considered ridiculous by the East. They think that saying a union that produced children and lasted many years was not even a natural marriage but merely a “putative marriage” is just semantics…if it quacks like a duck.
It may not have reached the level of the indissoluble Sacrament, but it could still have been a natural marriage, and even a sacramental.
A Sinner
I certainly am coming to this as an Easterner, though as a Catholic one, which means I am trying to look to the West and to the East, though with the Eastern disposition. And I think your way, as you just described it, is one way to deal with it, though the East does see only first marriage should be given a sacramental liturgy with crowning. Now there are debates as to what to do when one person is going to have a second marriage and one is on first — but, in general, the East continues with economia and, I think now it is quite common to give a crowning in such a circumstance (this was not always the case).
I see no place for any of this in my life and am mostly resigned, over these issues, to see my life end outside either the Eastern or Western Church. If this is authentically the confusion Jesus left in his wake, then perhaps I want to eternity with Him, either.
This is terrible, but neither is this an assault on anyone contributing here. It is the opinion of a person in agony for many years and who sees no good in it, from my impressions of both “traditions”.
I don’t disagree that “Marriages between Catholics and non-Christians, while they may still be valid in the eyes of the Church, are non-sacramental. With permission, a priest or deacon may witness such marriages.” I repeated this fact two posts above.
As to whether the Diocese of Lincoln q&a is right that “since most Protestant religions do not recognize marriage as a sacrament, but only a “holy ordinance” or something like that, it would be doubtful if a non-Catholic who did not recognize matrimony as a sacrament would actually then receive a sacrament,” you have certainly cited a source for your view and I thank you for doing that. It is not clear, however, how your source is consistent with canon 1055 and the Catechism, or with the other source you cite, the USCCB website, which states “The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament.” To the degree that the sources are inconsistent, I think canon 1055 is more authoritative.
In order for the sources to be consistent, it must be true that “a valid matrimonial contract” is not accomplished by the non-Catholic Christian’s belief that marriage is not a sacrament. Canon 1099 says that “Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or SACRAMENTAL DIGNITY of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.” This seems to mean that if a baptized Christian so strongly believes that marriage is not a sacrament he can determine in his will for marriage that he is not entering a sacramental marriage. However, if he does this it appears that under canon 1099 he has vitiated matrimonial consent.
In “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by Beal, Coriden and Green (available on Google books), the authors state (page 1316, pardon the typos) that “According to the Church’s teaching, when two baptized persons marry validly, their marriage is by that fact a sacrament [citing canon 1055]. When one baptized person marries another while excluding the sacramental dignity of marrige from his consent, the marriage is invalid. This much is traditional jurisprudence. Recently, however, canonists have discussed how cases in which the exclusion of marriage’s sacramental dignity is alleged should be dealt with in tribunals. The traditional position is that exclusion of sacramental dignity is a species of total simulation. The marriage contract and the marital sacrament are so intimately intertwined that to exclude one is to exclude the other. More recently, canonists have argued that, at least from a psychological perspective, a person can genuinely desire a marriage, but one bereft of the quality of sacramentality. Thus, similation of sacramental dignity is a species of partial simulation in which an essential element or property of marriage is excluded from consent. The mere fact that a baptized person adheres to a non-Catholic church whose doctrine rejects the sacramentality of marriage is not sufficient to prove that he or she excluded sacramental dignity from consent. The person’s religious believes would be presumed to be at most a general or habitual intention and not the positive act of the will required for simulation.”
So do I assume correctly that you adopt the modern canonical view rather than the traditional one on this issue? Even so, I don’t think that even under your view most protestants would have sufficient determination against sacramental dignity to obtain a valid but natural marriage.
Bonaventure
Modern vs traditional? No, did you read the opening of the discussion and what the traditional view was, and how it was post-Trent that things started to develop in a modern way?
I did read what you wrote, and the only way you can argue that it denies the permanence of marriage is to deny the meaning of the word divorce. As far as polygamy goes, it is certainly serial polygamy, in the sense that a person ends up with more than one spouse, but that stretches the meaning of the word “polygamy. You have confounded divorce and remarriage with polygamy. Divorce is intended to end a marriage. Divorce is synonymous with marriage dissolution, or marriage termination. It’s what the word means. What your argument entails is that divorce is impossible, and that the word is a nonsense term.
In addition, your argument also means that you are not actually arguing for polygamy, rather you are arguing for group marriage in that A can be married to B & C simultaneously, while B can be married to A @ D simultaneously and C can be married, possibly to A, D, and E. This is what your argument logically entails. My wife’s parents did the wife-swap thing when she was an infant, with another divorce for her mother after that. There are three husbands and two wives in that group, all living, and there’s no possible way that grouping could form some form some sort of Christian marriage.
Group marriage where so many people, or more, can have intertwining marriage relationships is nowhere to be found in Catholic tradition. To the contrary, Bonaventure has been arguing from Catholic tradition. Your argument has no basis in Catholic tradition, nor can it given the logical consequences. Marriage is permanent and exclusive, until the death of a spouse. This is what the Church has always taught. What you are proposing may be based on concern for jilted spouses, which is admirable, but it is in no way Catholic.
Doug
You certainly are not understanding what I wrote…. reread.
I would only add that even if the Church teaching can be reconciled with the more recent apparently minority view that, even though most protestants have sacramental marriages by default, some few protestants so deliberately will the non-sacramentality of marriage that they contract a valid natural but non-sacramental marriage, even if that’s possible it wouldn’t go far to help the point of your original post. Because even if a protestant could do that in his first marriage to a protestant, a Catholic wouldn’t seem to be able to do it in his first marriage to a Catholic, since there’s no doctrine of non-sacramentality for him to will, and if a Catholic tried it it would even more likely invalidate his marriage than if a protestant tried it in invincible ignorance. And more importantly your post is talking about second marriages not first marriages–nothing in Catholic Church teaching suggests that if a protestant or a Catholic enters a first marriage that is sacramental (instead of merely natural), he could possibly will a second one on merely the natural level. You seem to be saying that some Orthodox believe this and that some polygamy has been allowed. But both the traditional and recent Catholic views hold that no one can will a natural marriage if they aren’t even entering into a valid marriage, and that the Catholic Church teaches that if a first marriage is sacramental, a second marriage isn’t even valid, so it wouldn’t even qualify for the possibility of someone willing it to be merely natural. Since all the people you are trying to help pastorally are Catholics who are stuck (so to speak) in sacramental marriages, the option of a Catholic willing a merely natural second marrige can’t be extrapolated from the possibility that protestsnts could will a merely natural first marriage.
Bonaventure
We already have it established that Catholics can validly enter natural marriage. That is the key.
Well, I think the second marriage having a penitential character (even if it is to be recognized as a potentially a Sacrament) makes sense, as it recognizes that the first marriage really was a relationship that existed and tragically broke down, even if it never reached the level of an indissoluble Sacrament.
The Western view that simply “nothing” happened at all in annulled marriages…vastly oversimplifies the spiritual reality; I totally agree with the East there. I think this would be better recognized by seeing the first marriage as a valid natural marriage even if not the Sacrament, and so (the sin of) divorce still happens, albeit of a natural (and therefore theoretically dissoluble) marriage, whereas the post-tridentine Western conception seems to have no concept of a separate sin of divorce; it is simply seen as (for two Christians) impossible, and so the sin is just adultery.
I think liberally “annulling” marriages that break down (ie, declaring that they didnt reach the fullness of the Sacrament), but recognizing that they were valid natural marriages even if not the fullness of the Sacrament (and thus also real divorces of natural marriages), and then having subsequent marriage ceremonies be penitential in character to recognize the brokenness and un-ideal-ness in the situation…would uphold both the pragmatic pastoral reality, while at the same time preserving the principle of the absolute indissolubility of the Sacrament properly so called.
But recognizing some sort of polygamy simply has no place in the Christian dispensation, nor does disolving the full Sacrament itself. Christ is pretty clear about rendering asunder what God has joined, and remarriage after divorce being adultery (which the Church has always interpretted as meaning, strictly speaking, a full Sacramental marriage; ie, “except in cases of unlawfulness”)
A Sinner
Actually, there have been converts who were married with multiple wives given a dispensation because of it. And I think we need to remember Jesus did say “unless porneia,” which makes things even more complex. St Paul also allowed for remarriage if a Christian was divorced by a non-Christian. Nonetheless, I myself think the Orthodox are onto something with the second marriage, and just thinking it through, I think the polygamy issue remains, and why the discomfort in it.
I will have no time until this evening to elaborate on this, but it seems to me that all talk of “sacramental marriage” is pointless. When Jesus spoke of the indissolubility of marriage, he was talking to Jews, not Christians. Also, he looked back to the very creation of the human race — before there were any Jews — quoting Genesis.
It also seems to me that Paul, in allowing the “Pauline privilege,” was acknowledging that even though Jesus had said marriage was indissoluble, there were nevertheless practical reasons why some marriage should be dissolved. He was not making distinctions between natural marriage and sacramental marriage (or so it seems to me). He was pointing out the practical consequences of a marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever if (and only if) the nonbeliever chose to walk away. He does not say (anachronistically) that if a believer and a nonbeliever choose to stay together, they must get “married in the Church.”
So it seems to me the indissolubility of marriage applies to all marriage, and it also seems to me Paul set a precedent for making exceptions for ending marriages that would be problematic.
One further thought. When Jesus declared that marriage was indissoluble, the prevailing form of marriage as arranged marriage, in which the man had little or no say, and the woman had no say at all. They did not freely give themselves to each other. They obeyed their parents and accepted the marriage, which was largely an economic arrangement. So marriage then bore little resemblance to marriage today. Also, divorce was quite different from what it is today. And oddly, Jesus is quoted as saying what the consequence of a woman divorcing a man was, but women could not divorce men. So what are we to make of that?
A few things that should be noted:
The highest principle used to interpret Eastern Catholic Canon Law is current and historical Orthodox practice. Eastern Catholic Canon Law should never be read through a Latin Catholic ‘filter’ because notions such as ‘automatic penalties’ simply do not exist in the CCEO. A distinctive Eastern ethos is apparent even when there is a 1:1 correspondence to the Latin Code. There is also a unique principle of ‘subsidiarity’ where individual Eastern Catholic Churches can have their own particular Canon Law.
The sections of the CCEO that deal with marriage are heavily Latinized for the simple purpose of harmonizing with the Latin Code. It is acknowledged that this is a temporary compromise and cannot be construed that it is normative or an ideal that the Orthodox must somehow ‘submit’ to. In fact, the entire CCEO is subject to abrogation or significant revision upon reunion with the Orthodox.
In Eastern theology, marriage does not end at death. Even widows are discouraged from remarriage because there is no contractual ‘until death do us part’. (Which is a late development exclusive to the West). The 12th century canonist and Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon quotes Mark 10, 6-8, and says, “we believe and confess that the spouses are on account of the marriage, reckoned to be one humanity having more or less the same soul, which is perceived in two hypostases.”
The oldest stratum of Catholic Tradition in both the East and the West saw marriage as an eternal bond that transcended death. The early Church refused to bless second marriages for ANY reason, even if the first marriage was declared null (annulment). Until the 9th century, the Church did not bless second marriages, but civil marriage was available for those who wanted to remarry after divorce or widowhood. A divorced and remarried person could normally return to the Eucharist after 3 to 5 years of appropriate penance.
Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage and made the Church responsible for the regulation of marriage. The Church was then forced to deal with the social and legal consequences of divorce and marriage, but could not compromise its understanding of Christian marriage as a sacrament that endures into in the divine kairos. The compromise solution was the ‘Rite of Second Marriage ’ which was not sacramental but merely contractual, perhaps even borrowed from the West’s concept of ‘until death’.
Until the 12th century, early scholastics said marriage was not sacrament at all. Once the West accepts marriage as a Sacrament, there is considerable debate on the nature of Marriage. Eventually the modern concept that intention or vows initiates marriage and sex consummates marriage arises. (the East does not share this view since the priest is the conduit of divine action uniting 2 people, not unlike changing bread and wine into Christ’s Body)
More recently, Latin canonists and theologians have been concerned with the ‘Spiritual Consummation’ of marriage. That mere consent and sexual consummation does not make a valid marriage. It requires both parties to be heroically faithful and practicing Catholics to survive all the difficulties of life. In this view, almost any divorced and remarried couple is entitled to an annulment because that in itself is evidence that the marriage was not consummated in the ultimate spiritual sense.
Defects in consent or consummation might technically allow for annulment, but in the popular mind the Church is really in the business of granting Ecclesiastical Divorce. At simple face value the number of annulments granted is contrary to a concept of indissolubly of marriage and a scandal. A call to return to ancient and Eastern theology and practice might indeed enhance the pastoral care of those in the Latin Church.
Henry,
Some questions for you: For Orthodox who partake in the 2nd marriage ceremony, are they allowed to receive communion? Are you saying the Church should allow for the recognition of civil marriages?
RCM
Just a couple things. The Church does recognize civil marriage (which is why non-Christians are not sinning in marriage). The question is what exactly does it mean for the Christian. I think this is an issue of discipline. The Orthodox have found a way to deal with it, and yes, those who have the second marriage are allowed to communion. It is seen as a dispensation/economia issue due to human frailty. And I think the Orthodox are on to something here. I’ve even read a few discussions where St Thomas Aquinas, though not fond of multiple marriages and thought they could lead to abuse, nonetheless thought, according to natural law, it isn’t inherent they cannot be done, though for sacramental marriage — there is where it becomes only one.
Henry,
For roughly the first thousand years of its existence, the Church did not involve itself in marriage ceremonies, so all marriages were civil marriages. And certainly when Jesus made his comments on divorce and remarriage, he wasn’t talking about “sacramental marriage.” Nevertheless, I can’t imagine that the Church maintains that all those who were joined in civil ceremonies before Church weddings existed were in non-sacramental marriages. The very late “discovery” that marriage was a sacrament really confuses everything.