Recently we received news that a couple we know, a couple we were once
close to, had received an annulment.
They had been married for twenty-odd years, had brought nine children into the world, and had homeschooled them. They were an NFP teaching couple and had taught marriage preparation classes in their diocese. The husband for years earned his living working for a Catholic prolife apostolate. In other words, this was the archetypal Catholic countercultural family, deeply committed to their faith: well-read, articulate Catholics. Then a few years ago the wife, in what her friends can only suppose was a fit of menopausal madness, left her husband and children (remember when midlife crises were only a male
phenomenon?). After some time she applied first for a civil divorce, then for an annulment. To everyone’s dismay but hers, the annulment was granted.
I understand that the annulment process is highly personal. Perhaps some deep dark secret lurked in their past. If so it must have been deep indeed: to all appearances the husband is a fine fellow, even-tempered and loving. The wife, while unduly intense, struck everyone who knew her as bright and
devout.
This annulment seems to those of us who knew them as a hypocritical outrage. My reaction was if they can get an annulment anyone can.
While I recognize that there are valid grounds for annulments, and know many cases where this is true, when I see this sort of apparent abuse, I think that in such cases, where clear grounds for annulment do not exist, it would be better to adopt the Orthodox approach: remarriage is allowed as a concession to human weakness, but it is not a sacramental union([and remarriage to the partner
in adultery is not allowed). The service is penitential, and the couple is expected to abstain from Holy Communion for a fixed time afterwards.
At least with this praxis the offending party cannot pretend all is well. As it is, my friend, who initiated the breakup of her marriage and inflicted untold harm on her family, can marry her new man in a big Catholic wedding if she wishes, walking down the aisle with a conscience assauged by the Church itself.
That the Church has come to this–providing excuses for sins against God and man–is a scandal, an open wound in the Body of Christ.
Lord have mercy.
–Daniel Nichols
Besides the evident scandal, this kind of thing is disturbing on a personal level: is it possible that my beloved wife of twenty-eight years could walk in one day and announce that it was all a big mistake and she wants out?
There is a story like the one you tell which has become semi-public because the wife (in this case the abandoned one) is fighting the divorce. Can’t remember whether annulment is in play. Also can’t remember the name but she has a web site. They apparently had a seemingly successful apostolate of some kind.
Maclin –
The story you are referring to is told in this Godspy interview
Yep, that’s it. Thank you. Horrible situation.
I think the option of the East is impossible, and shows that once you leave the Church you become defectable very quickly. The East is blessing adultery, whether the rite is penitential or not. The couple is also receiving communion while living in an objective state of mortal sin.
To defend the Church slightly. First I would say this is a great scandal and therefore even if there were grounds for annulment that are not publicly known the annulment should not have been granted. But my instincts have always been harsher than the Church’s, so I admit I am probably the one mistaken. So in defense, I know some Catholic couples that would fit the public criteria of this couple, however, would have grounds for a legitimate annulment if they ever wished to seek one. Second, the annulment process assumes that the parties seeking the annulment will not lie in order to receive their annulment. While, giving the benefit of the doubt to the person’s honesty is certainly the Christ-like thing to do, you would be naive if you believed that no one would lie to the Church tribunal. When you seek your annulment you go to a canon lawyer and he tells you what circumstances would warrant an annulment, and the couple than gives testimony that meets the circumstances required. The system is usually based on purely subjective criteria, ie what the person felt or believed at the time of their marriage. It is a scandal that the Church in America grants so many annulments, but I think it is equally scandalous that these people are allowed to be married in the first place. I know not a few devout Catholic couples, who felt that the sacrament of matrimony was not confected at the time of their marriage due to some impediment that has been over come in subsequent years. These people could all be given an annulment, because I do not believe the Church looks into whether the impediment that existed on the day of the marriage, could have been removed during the marriage.
Finally, I know a conservative Catholic who was scandalized (and still is) by the number of annulments in America. He went on to become a canon lawyer, and from what he has seen, he has never seen an annulment granted that did not meet the criteria set forth by canon law. Even in the case of Bud Macfarlene above, if he is willing to say that he personally had some impediment at time of the marriage, the tribunal will believe him, and he will be given an annulment. It takes two to marry, and if one is lacking the intention or has an impediment the Sacrament is not confected. BTW this is why the East cannot grant annulments. They are under the impression that the Priest is the ministry of the Sacrament. Therefore the intention of the couple or their psychology can virtually never invalidate a marriage. In the west the couple is the minister of the Sacrament.
Christopher- I take great issue with your statement that the Orthodox have left the Church. They have done no such thing and are recognized by the Holy See not as “ecclesial communities’ like the Protestants, but as Churches, possessing valid Apostolic authority, Sacraments and the Deposit of Faith. They lack only a juridical unity with the Roman See, which does not invalidate them as genuine Churches.
When the East allows second, non-sacramental unions it is practicing economia, easing the Law for the sake of human weakness. The Church is told that what it binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what it looses on earth is loosed in heaven. As Moses allowed divorce, and God permitted polygamy, so the Church allows remarriage for the good of souls.
One of the first things we learn about human nature in the Old Testament is that “it is not good for man to be alone.” Loneliness is a breeding ground for all sorts of sin. And in this age chastity is no ordinary virtue, like it would be in an age of faith; it is a heroic virtue. Should the innocent abandoned spouse have to struggle with the raising of children and the temptations of life without a helpmate?
And if it is as you say, my hunch is right, as is Maclin’s fear: anyone can get an annulment.
Dear Daniel,
Definition of Schism from CCC:
“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
How do you figure the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow (or Constantinople, etc.) does not fit in this definition?
Second, Christ did away with “economia” for marriage so your references to the OT are irrelevant. The Church cannot unbind what Christ has bound. True “Economia” is what the Roman Rite is currently doing by granting annulments for marriages that are most likely invalid, and suffering through the scandal that is caused. The Church has always taught there are some things that not even She can do. Bless adultery falls into this category.
How can the Church ease a law enjoined by God? The power of binding and loosing refers to the authority the Church has to forgive sins or to retain them, it does not mean the Church can alter what is of divine establishment. The Church can not dissolve a sacramental union any more than she can change the elements in the Eucharist from bread and wine to chips and beer. But if a sacramental union is present,then a marriage is present — and then any oikonomia allowing remarriage is an oikonomia permitting adultery.
As for the Orthodox, since there never has been a formal schism between any particular Eastern Church and Rome, then at best what we have is a material schism between East and West — one on the part of the particular members of the Churches not formally on the part of the Churches themselves. Still, material schism is a dangerous thing for the East, since it cuts the Churches there off from the living magisterium. Their bishops have to exercise their teaching authority apart from Peter and without any possible correction from Peter. The Latin Church suffers as well, since it is cut off from the riches that God has bequeathed to the East. But the Churches united with Rome maintain the formal character of the Church of Christ whereas, in the Orthodox Churches, that character is only imperfectly realized. Thus, any appeal to the practices of the Orthodox Churches suffers as an appeal to a weak authority.
A second point, in regards to annulments. If a spouse suddenly discovers after ten, 20, 30 years of marriage that he or she never was married, and this can actually be established, shouldn’t the Church say, “fine, we’ll grant you an annulment, but to help you fulfill the commitment you have made to this person by your public acknowledgement of marriage to him or her, we will now bless your marriage.” Funny, isn’t it, that this is what never occurs?
The answer to the annulment problem is not oikonomia but a radical reappropriation of the Gospel of Christ. We have to stop playing Church and conform to Christ. This is hard, desperately hard. But the Faith is not meant to be a comfort, but a goad.
“Schism” is not a term the Church uses to describe the Orthodox Churches. When the Pope calls them “sister Churches” and says that we need to “breathe with both lungs” he is acknowledging the ecclesial character of the Eastern Churches. The sort of overly juridical and arrogant Western attitude you display does great harm to the hope of reunion.
Note that I never said that the Orthodox practice was without problems; I merely said it would be better than the come-one-come-all annulment status quo in the West.
If the Orthodox practice is “blessing adultery” what do you call the current Western practice?
In a sense it is worse, as it is adultery posing as a sacramental union.
But then I am not sure if you and Mr Zehnder agree with me that the thing is out of hand or think that indeed valid marriage is a rare bird.
You cite canon lawyers who tell you that in fact this is the case. I sometimes think canon lawyers believe that to be validly married one needs a canon law degree, with a minor in theology, plus a rarified sort of personal integrity and a big dose of sanctity.
I say nonsense. Obviously in the current climate, there are invalid marriages due to uncatechized and immature people “marrying”
in the Church; I know many cases like these, some in my own family. I have no argument with this, but my friends were nearer 30 than 20 when they married, and neither was mentally ill or uncatechized.
I think that it is not, in these cases, so much a matter of lying to the tribunal as remembering decades-old events and emotions filtered through the disappointments of life and with the desirability of the annulment in view.
On the link to the interview with Mrs McFarlane she notes that she experienced dissatisfaction with her marriage upon reading JPII’s marital theology. She’s not the only one; I know of other cases in which this played a part in unsettling marriages [I think this was true in my friends' case as well].
It is like reading a saint’s account of receiving the Eucharist and then comparing your own paltry, distracted experience. You might come to doubt whether your pastor is validly ordained, whether you were even receiving the same Eucharist.
It is the nature of things here below that we but rarely get anything but a hint of the sacramental graces that suffuse our lives.
Perhaps John Paul’s writings ought to be rated SFG [spiritual father's guidance] to keep the immature from despair…
I in no way meant to approve how annulments are granted today. However, I do say that the basic concept of annulmentis sound theology, despite what seem to be abuses. Oikonomia as practiced by the Orthodox is not. Further I meant to say that the Church should work to rectify an annulment by at least offering to bless the marriage, thus rendering it sacramental as well as natural. It shouldn’t matter what one intended so many odd years ago; one can intend correctly today and can fulfill his duty to the person he’s been shacked up with for so many years. Annulment shouldn’t be seen as an avenue of escape but as a way to set right what was begun wrongly.
Another thought: Isn’t it true that until recently, a soldier who killed someone in battle was required to abstain from the Eucharist for a set time and do penance? And he could never be ordained to the priesthood? I don’t believe he had to promise never to fight again; it was more a concession by the Church to the realities of living in this fallen world.
[Does anyone know when this practice stopped?]
Might not this be a precedent for the non-sacramental union that I propose as a concession to human weakness?
Please note that these are recent speculations; indeed I have argued with Orthodox believers on precisely these very things. I am thinking aloud [or, actually, online.}
Christopher- We seem to have cross-posted. I would only say to your proposal- a sound one as far as it goes- that by that point usually there is little intention to do anything but get out of the situation.
My friend’s situation is a mystery; she avoided me, to whom she once confided, for the time all this was festering. Indeed, I have no clue as to why the marriage seemed intolerable to her, other than perhaps a too rarified expectation…
I’ll leave the moral theology to the rest of you, although I must say it’s hard to believe that there aren’t some unjustifiable annulments happening.
I find myself sort of brooding over the breakup itself, not the annulment. I can’t help speculating on a couple of things you (Daniel) mention: nine children, and an “unduly intense” personality. I think you have to be able to go with the flow, roll with the punches, etc., to raise nine children, and maybe if you’re a person who can’t do that…well, who knows? The thing I find maybe most surprising, if your reference to the “new man” is not just hypothetical, is that someone would want to try to start over at that point in life. I may eat these words someday, but I’ve felt for some years now that if something happened to my wife I’d have little interest in remarrying.
I had forgotten that note in the McFarlane interview about reading JPII leading to dissatisfaction with marriage. Such a possibility had never occurred to me. Lord have mercy, what an example of an unintended consequence!
A further note: the Catholic Church does allow its members to enter non-sacramental unions already. A Catholic, though discouraged, is allowed to marry an unbaptized person, which is only a natural, not a sacramental, marriage…
At the risk of saying over again what others already said, there is a saying that hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. Our current annulment situation seems to me to be a prime example of hypocrisy, but it keeps the pretence of marital indissolubility. And this is better than simply abandoning the law of Christ and allowing adultery – unless we don’t think Christ really abolished divorce. But I certainly agree that it is shocking and a scandal.
As for the Eastern Orthodox, I’m puzzled by Christopher’s statement that there has never been a formal schism – what would be necessary to constitute a formal schism then? Yes, the Orthodox communities are churches, that is, particular churches, since they have bishops and the Euchatist, but a particular church can be out of communion with the center of unity, Rome, and in that sense out of the Universal Church, or at least in an imperfect communion with her. We use the word “church” in different senses, analogical senses, to be sure, but not the same.
My problem with annulments is that in practice it seems the Church is burdened with proving that a marriage was valid. It would be nice is advocate had the burden, and their claim was actually scrutinized. These annulments tell me that the tribunals believe, “Better a married man be given an annulment than risk declaring a marriage valid that is not.”
We would refer to Protestant communions as “churches” analogously, but the Orthodox are Churches in the strict sense of the word. “Imperfect communion” is the preferred term. To the Fathers of the Church the Church existed in its fullness wherever the bishop and people are assembled.
Popular Roman Catholic ecclesiology sees the Church as a sort of pyramid, with the Pope at the top, and the bishops deriving their authority from him. That is really not even proper RC theology; the bishops’ authority is intrinsic to the office. As the Orthodox bishops do not teach heresy, and do teach in accord with the Tradition they have received from the Apostles, there is nothing lacking; they preside over particular Churches. They do lack juridical unity with the Ecumenical Pontiff; scholars argue about whether the events of a thousand years ago constitute formal schism or something less than that; at any rate both sides were at fault, and the Orthodox [or Catholics] of today can hardly be held
accountable.
But to return to the main discussion, what good is the pretense of indissolubility if in reality anyone can divorce and remarry in the Church, which apparently is the state of things, at least in this country?
And MZ- in theory the assumption is supposed to be that the union is valid; in practice it is as you indicate: it seems that no union is valid. Hell, I think Therese Martin’s parents could have gotten an annulment if they were modern Americans. Or St Joseph and the Mother of God, for that matter [after all, didn't he have doubts about the paternity of the baby?]
And hilarious post about the perfect gift for the Eucharistic Minister [on his Yooper blog].
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is whether Christ prohibited absolute divorce or not. If he did, then notwithstanding the abuse of annulments in the U.S. today, we simply cannot legitimize absolute divorce with remarriage. A Moslem could argue that simulaneous polygamy is better than Western-syle serial polygamy, and he might well be right, but the answer is neither of these; the answer is true Christian marriage. Which is also the answer to the abuse of annulments.
Preach the Gospel, form priests correctly, refuse to solemnize marriage for those who aren’t seeking Catholic marriage for the right reasons, remind people thinking of leaving their spouses that the alternatives they face are either lifelong abstinence or the likely prospect of hellfire. That might catch their attention.
I understand that at least in the Greek Orthodox Church, the penitential marriage service is actually rarely used, and people entering second marriages are allowed the full show, with crowining, etc.
I had two friends who did just that: upon discovering that there might have been an impediment at the time of their marriage due to possible lack of consent (mental illness), they talked to their pastor and repeated their wedding vows (and I think, had this recorded in the parish records). I found that very beautiful.
Being Eastern Catholic, I have quite a number of Orthodox friends, and it’s telling how many can quote me passages from the Fathers saying that a second marriage is permitted, but should be avoided – until you look at the context, and discover that issue was NOT remarriage after divorce, but whether one might remarry after the death of a spouse.
Honestly, how many of us would recommend that a widowed relative think about remarrying at some point, after some decent interval has passed? How many would support their decision to remain single as something pleasing to God? What does this say about our view of the ends of marriage?
I think that if I do not actually know the family Daniel is referring to, I at least know a family which fits the description entirely. The grown daughters (the oldest of the children) are convinced that their mother is mentally ill – but, as always, well-spoken and cogent in small doses, which would explain how she was able to convince the marriage tribunal.
But the lesson I took from all this was that we really can’t often know what is going on inside, from the appearance from the outside. Had not the daughters told me some of the more bizarre demands and complaints made by their mother, or shared their concerns that their father had been sleeping on the couch for the last 5 years of the marriage, I would have been taken totally by surprise at news of the seperation, divorce, and annulment. But knowing a little of the history (the mother’s wild youth prior to returning to the church, the tumultuous early years, and some of the imbalances and oddities in the family life that were not visible from the outside) and that small view from the inside doesn’t make this any less a tragedy, just a somewhat more complicated, and less surprising one.
Sigh. Of course, the relevant question is, if o many marriages are invalid, how do we discourage men and women from forming invalid marriages in the first place? How do we better prepare couples for marriage?
Kate,
I think you hit on the largest issue in this: if a marriage develops irreconcilable differences, by necessity it is invalid. I won’t dispute that at times civil divorce is necessary. I don’t believe remarriage should be sought at this point.
MZ- I’m not sure you meant to say that a marriage can become invalid if irreconcilable differences develop, but that is how your post reads.
In fact, the Church holds that a marriage is only invalidated by a pre-existing lack of some vital element of that union, existing on the day of the wedding.
Clear examples are one of the spouses never intending fidelity, or never intending to have children.
Shakier grounds, and these seem to constitute the vast majority of annulments in this country, are severe psychological shortcomings and immaturity. This is where the abuse comes in; some people seem to think that the pair must be veritable saints to validly marry…
In regard to Daniel’s example of the Church’s concessions to soldiers — though I am not familiar with the particular practice alluded to,it seems that this was a matter of Church discipline, much like the exhortation (at least) to husbands and wives to refrain from receiveing the sacrament the morning after they had sexual relations. Church discplines, like clerical celibacy, can be be altered or eased, since the Church has authority over her own laws. However, the indissolubility of marriage is by divine right, over which the Church has no authority.
As for Tom’s question about Orthodox schism. I claim no expertise on this subject, but it seems to me that no formal declaration of excommunication was ever issued by Rome, except in the case of Michael Caerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in the 11th century. But that was merely a personal excommunication of the patriarch and did not signify a schism between the Churches; and, in any case, it was lifted by Pope Paul VI. Individual bishops and patriarchs may have been (and I think were and are) schismatic, but that doesn’t render the churches these men rule schismatic any more than a de-facto schismatic Roman bishop renders his diocese in schism. True schism requires a formal act of rejection of authority or of excommunication — at least, I think it does. I think this is why, in part, that the Church no longer refers to the Orthodox as schismatic (apart from ecumenical diplomacy, that is.)
But this just occurred to me — have the Orthodox kept the pope on their diptychs? I think the removal of the pope from the diptychs could constitute a formal act of schism. Does anyone know about this.
No, they do not commemorate the Pope. I doubt this would constitute a formal act of schism, except for the Patriarch who originally omitted it.
You are correct, that wasn’t what I intended. I was trying to say that people try to use, in my belief incorrectly, that irreconcilable differences are evidence that a marriage was invalid. What today’s annullment situation is really saying is that the sacrament of marriage is dependent upon our holiness for its validity. Rather than say divorce is a part of our fallen nature to sin, we instead concoct fantasies about the marriage never existing. Regardless of circumstance, 9 children is evidence of marriage.
It is a sad commentary when many states’ rules for common law marriage are stronger than many of the rules for the Church’s tribunals.
The point about the discipline for those who had killed in war is that the Church recognized that killing is an ontological evil, even if it is one that is rendered justifiable by other evils.
And while it may help those close to the woman in question to paint her as mentally ill, I doubt this is true in any sort of pathological way. Eccentric? Certainly. Neurotic? Probably. Insane? As in unable to distinguish reality from illusion? Get real.
If eccentricity, neurosis, and a wild youth render a marriage null, then I see marriages all around me dropping like flies.
The majority of the phony annulments involve psychological factors, and this is not the only case where over-reliance on psychologists has resulted in scandal. The sex abuse scandal is largely rooted in bishops believing the experts to whom they had sent abusive priests. Assured by the psychologists that the men had responded well to therapy, they were reassigned and given a new start. And a new start is what most of them commenced, only not in the way the bishops had foreseen.
Either the vows are the simplest of things, which any well-catechized Christian can assent to, or they are elusive, rarified things which only a very few possess the psychological clarity, maturity and understanding to freely profess.
The latter model, alas, seems to be the one the Church in this country has adopted.
As sad as it is, there are people who lie when entering a marriage, marry for the sake of marriage and not as a Godly union, are too immature to consider the spiritual commit, or any endless combination of these. I think it’s good the church recognizes this fact and has a procedure to verify this is indeed the case and forgive the sin of entering into an invalid marriage. For those who take the gospel and marriage to heart, having your marriage declared invalid, even if you have finally come to the realization it is indeed that, is a painful, stressful ordeal.
Having said that, it alarms me that annulments are being granted when there’s 20 plus years of marriage and multiple children involved. It’s my belief and understanding that it’s the intentions entering into a marriage that invalidates it, not occurrences (outside of mental illness and adultery) during the marriage. Even if someone entered into a marriage under false pretenses, those should become evident to the offended spouse reasonably quickly. Living life together for over 20 years, coupled with the shared trials and triumphs that are part of raising children should negate those pretenses in practice and the eyes of the Church.
In response to Kate’s question about what can be done up front to avoid this ugliness in the first place; I’ve often felt that there needs to be a way, especially with the younger couples, to shift the focus from the wedding to the marriage. This can’t be done with the current perfunctory pre-marriage classes. So often, the couple spends 2 years planning a production number that would make Andrew Lloyd Webber blush at it’s gaudiness, and almost no time thinking about the life commitment they’re supposed to be making. Spending $30,000-$50,000 on a wedding is obscene, yet I’ve never heard of a priest taking a stand on this issue. Why couldn’t the Church put a limit on the amount of money and pageantry that goes into a wedding? Would it help anything if they did?
Daniel, I didn’t take Kate to be suggesting that current mental problems render a twenty- or thirty-year-old vow invalid. Although I guess she can clarify if that’s what she meant.
It comes down to: did they know what they were doing? and did they mean what they said? If, in a given case, it’s conceded that the answers are “yes,” but then the question becomes “was he/she truly capable of knowing/meaning?” one could end up taking the position that no twenty-something-year-old truly knows what it means to make a life-long vow. SoI think your “either/or” is pretty much on the money.
Your remark about the fresh start for abusive priests would be funny if the situation weren’t so horrible. Almost made me laugh, then awareness of the context kicked in.
One of my pet peeves is the immaturity part. It wasn’t so long ago that a 14-year-old girl and a 16-year-old guy were considered mature enough to wed. Despite all the progress in our society, twenty-somethings are considered not necessarily mature enough to marry. The reasoning just bothers me, and not just because I married at 21. I believe popular legend has it that Mary was 14 or so when she was engaged to Joseph. Most of our saints knew their calling well before 18.
It seems to me that one need only to be able to understand in a general way what the vow entails and intend it — no one can know all the possible hardships that marriage can bring. Most young people are immature when they get married — I, who was married at 23, certainly was. Neither did I understand exactly what I was getting myself into, though I admit my wife’s and my marriage has been very happy. But, still, what sufferings lay ahead? Sickness? Incapacity of one of us while the children are still young? I don’t know. And I didn’t know, or think much about such eventualities, when I got married. But I understood the meaning of the marriage vows and knew, no matter what, I was bound to this person until death. And I knew that I had remain faithful and welcome children, and all the rest; and just because I knew all this in a general way, does not mean I really did not really know it. I understood it in its essence, and that’s all that was important.
Sometimes it seems people claim annulment because they didn’t really know what a jerk their spouses were before they married them — “He was not capable of supporting a family because he was too self-centered,” “she was not serious and only wanted to have a good time,” etc. But if character flaws can invalidate a marriage, then no marriage is valid. Too, the assumption seems to be that knowing the person one is marrying is the central factor — that one needs to know what keeping the vow to this person entails rather than simply understanding the nature of marriage and intending what one understands.
This subject touches close to home for my wife Katherine and me. In the past year we have learned of two couples we know who have split. We are godparents for the child of one couple and the other couple are godparents to one of our children. I can think, too, of at least five other Catholic couples, whom we do not know as well, who have separated, all within the circle of our college friends. It is all very depressing.
I didn’t take Kate to mean that; Michael apparently thinks this is the case, but the Church would hold that nothing that occurs after a marriage has happened invalidates it, only what is present when the union first happens. Now if one can show that the illness is pre-existent, or that there was never any intention of fidelity, that is a different matter. Like I said, it is generally these days the case that the psychological reasons for invalidity do not generally mean insanity, or some pathological state, but immaturity and an inability to make a lifelong committment. This is why there are so many abuses; these are sort of hazy categories…
As the yooper says, people were considered men and women by adolescence in premodern times. Today, childhood has been extended artificially into young [in some cases old] adulthood.
Is the age of reason now 40?
To the modern American tribunal this is apparently the case.
I just re-read my last comment and noticed a crucial typo: “but then the question becomes “was he/she truly capable of knowing/meaning?” was supposed to be “but then IF the question becomes “was he/she truly capable of knowing/meaning?” I intended to be making more or less the same point as y’all, that it can become impossibly hazy to answer a question like that, at least if you don’t want to leave the door open for almost any marriage to be judged null.
I was thinking more along the lines of sudden and extreme mental illness. The kind that manifests itself in violent and/or criminal ways. Anything else I would think falls under the “In sickness and in health” clause…
But isn’t that like saying that the sickness and health part doesn’t apply to the sudden onset of paralysis, or something similarly devastating?
It would have to be shown that the mental illness already existed at the time of the wedding.
But even if mental illness existed at the time of the wedding, would this invalidate the marriage? I could see that it would if the illness made it impossible for the afflicted party to understand and intend the ends of marriage, and maybe if the afflicted person knew of his condition and did not inform his fiancee, but for no other reason. But certainly, if it sprang up after the marriage was consummated, it wouldn’t invalidate the marriage. Invalidity means never valid. There’s nothing ex post facto about sacramental marriage
I think perhaps I’m not explaining myself well Daniel. I agree with you for the most part on this. I’m not speaking of a debilitating mental health problem, such as manic depression or even the person becoming catatonic, but rather someone who becomes violent or criminal, endangering the life of his spouse or children. I realize that would be a rare occurrence. What I’m trying to say is I think something that extreme, that came on suddenly, would be the only time mental health should come into play. Anything else is a health issue you promised to endure by way of your vows.
For what it is worth, it is probably rare for something like this to develop without prior symptoms. Nevertheless, if such a thing developed it would not nullify the union.
On the other hand- in response to Christopher Z., mental illness [and I don't mean the neuroses that psychologists would ascribe to most of us] at the time of the attempted union would render the will unable to make a real volitional act. I would think this quite rare, and even rarer the case where there was no prior indication of this problem.
It’s strange but Americans now consider 20 year olds to be too immautre to marry but have no problem giving condoms to 13 year olds and allowing them to get abortions without their parents knowing a thing about it. Our society has gone completely mad.
I wish there was a better marriage preparation method. Pre-Cana is garbage.
One thing that has to be adressed is the fact that the Orthodox practice has its basis in quite ancient, if local, canons, such as the so-called Trullan Council. This practice proved no stumbling block in the pre-schism Church. Indeed, the Orthodox rule limiting the number of divorces at 3 was in response to the papal legates in Constantinople who were allowing the Emperor a fourth marriage. The Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized the emperor and sent the legates packing. Whether ideal or not, the practice is found in antiquity and wasn’t a problem then.
Further, the abuses of Western practice are by no means distinctly new or American. IIRC, Henry VIII’s problem was not just that he couldn’t get another annullment, but that the King of Spain and other prominent statesmen were getting as many as they want, so Henry took it as a personal affront.
Jeff, while many Patristic texts that might be relevant deal with marriage after the death of a spouse (quotes that are good reading for our self-indulgent, do-it-if-it-feels-good church culture), the current Eastern canonical structure is clearly consistent with that of old, all the way back to St. Basil the Great and St. John the Faster of Alexandria.
The fact is that this is a messy subject without easy answers. As long as the process is in line with traditional canonical practice, I don’t think we are in a position to judge that process. Canonical practices approved by councils (even if not Ecumenical), saints, bishops, patriarchs and popes (or at least his reps) are fine by me. To call them immoral risks the Protestant heresy.
Wow….I wish I’d kept up on this, it looks like it developed into an interesting thread.
To clarify my earlier comment – I do not hold that mental illness with its onset after the marriage is grounds for annulment – I just offered it as a reason why an previously seeming-rational woman would suddenly conclude that her marriage never existed, that her (meek and mild) husbands exercise of paternal authority in the home consitituted abuse, that her entire life had been a lie…and other bizarre behaviours that I won’t air here, as they are more specific and perhaps recognizable.
I would wager that there are more authentically invalid marriages formed now than in centuries past when people lived in a Catholic (or at least Christian) environment. Many many couples go into marriage without an understanding of openess to life (intending to use contraception or not wanting children), without free consent (being ‘shacked up’ and financially dependant on the other, or pregnant, or caught up in an addiction to p*rn, drugs, etc), lacking the intent to make a life-long vow (for those who view divorce and/or annulment as an ‘escape clause’), lacking the intent to fidelity (in the case of one friend of mine, her fiancee was still seeing another woman during their engagement and the first year of marriage, a friend testified to this at their annulment tribunal), etc. etc. etc.
None of these factors apply (to my knowledge) to the case earlier discussed, I just offer them to add some perspective to the discussion at hand…yes, annulments are more common now, and I am sure that some are invalidly granted. But, as Canon lawyer Ed Peters has argued (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_annulments.htm), we are also in an age which sets up more obstacles to marriage than ever before, and one in which, I would argue, a 22 year old is much less able to fully understand and consent to marriage that the 16 year old of 2 or 3 centuries back.
Ed Peters, so far as I have seen, has never met an annulment he didn’t like…Didn’t he [literally] write the book on the subject?
Daniel,
That last comment is unfair in the extreme to Dr. Peters (as you will see if you read the introduction in the article I referenced). It is useful, I think, to hear the perspective of those on the front lines, as it were. After all, who knows best why annulments are granted than those on the marriage tribunals, faced with the difficult decisions.
man with black hat: Where does forever go?
+ + +
Daniel et al:
If we are going to claim that “the family is under attack” in this society, it is difficult (if not dishonest to ourselves) to then turn around and claim that the casualties would not follow suit. To that end, how many annulments is too many? Or given the state of marriage preparation in recent years, and the collective misunderstanding of the indissolubility of marriage — is it possible, JUST POSSIBLE, that the problem is, in fact, too many invalid marriages?
However outlandish the question may seem on its face, it has the benefit of being closer to the root of any problem that we may observe, and to that end, may bring us closer to a solution.
Most people seeking annulments aren’t trying to “beat the rap.” They just want to get on with their lives. And roughly half of them are not in this situation by choice, and are often so despite their best efforts.
The sad and scary thing about the topic of this thread is that it places Catholic spouses at the same disadvantage as those who don’t have a covenental marriage. It was a consolation to me when contemplating marriage, and giving up my career, and placing myself in a vulnerable position by bearing many children, that my husband couldn’t just take off on me when things became difficult. I have been told we have grounds for an annulment because we didn’t date very long before we were married (this info came as an example of how “anyone could get an annulment”, not for any real purpose on our part). So now I am to assume the longevity of my marriage depends on my husband’s good will, not on any assurances from my church or the covenant I made. Sick. Sad. Wrong.
It certainly is reasonable to posit that the problem is a larger number of invalid marriages. Given the abysmal state of catechesis in general in the Church in America and, to what many attest, is the positive false information given at Engaged Encounter weekends, for instance, it would not be surprising if a large percentage of Catholics enter marriage without a real idea of the nature of marriage. We cannot discount this.
At the same time, given the abysmal state of the Faith in the United States (and elsewhere), I, at least, am left to wonder if those manning (personing? I don’t want to be non-inclusive) tribunals are not themselves so infected with the spirit of the age that they are not judging according to the Faith. Are we to think that tribunals are small islands of intense orthodoxy in a sea of heterodoxy and de facto schism? I for one find this doubtful.
In reply to Justin: I don’t think it Protestant to judge Orthodox practice, even if it can be justified by longstanding tradition and appeal to some of the Fathers (John Chrysostom, I remember, saw adultery as a justification for divorce), by appeal to the teachings on marriage received from the Roman Church, which carries with it the charism of universality. Whatever the confusions of the past or of Roman policy, the teaching that a marriage truly sacramental is indissoluble and forbids any other union is so well established in the teaching of the Church as to be indubitable. Church leaders have often failed to implement this teaching, but that does not bring the teaching into question.
“So now I am to assume the longevity of my marriage depends on my husband’s good will…”
Based on what, may I ask? Did you submit a petition, or simply ask a priest or canonist for what they might look? From a quick review of your weblog, it’s obvious you don’t have enough to worry about (wink!).
Thomas Aquinas once wrote: “Deus non aligatur sacramentii.” God is not bound by the sacraments. We are; he’s not. If by His Grace you and your beloved are held together, through whatever comes your way, then what more evidence of your covenant could you expect from anyone, in this life or the next?
Kate- More than one person early in this conversation spoke of a friend who had become a canon lawyer and now says he has never seen an annulment granted that was undeserved.
If they were not speaking of Dr. Peters they were speaking of someone with a parallel life.
I knew Ed Peters somewhat when he was a canon law student; he’s a fine fellow, but if he has raised his voice in protest against the laxity of the modern American tribunal I am unaware of it.
I apologize for the unnecessarily smart-alecky tone of my comment, but I stand by its substance.
I readily grant that many invalid marriages are contracted because we have what are essentially baptized pagans getting “married” in the Church. I would hold that even in these cases it is not some great act requiring a noble, mature and psychologically perfectly integrated soul to achieve. It is simple: to freely pledge fidelity, with openness to children, for life.
I’m afraid that we have people thinking they deserve annulments because their spouse, in essence, does not meet their every need, or because their experience of marriage falls short of something they read in a theology book.
And I am with Renee: this sort of easy annulment is enough to make anyone insecure.
And Justin is not talking about tolerating “Orthodox” practice as if it were some other religion; he is talking about pre-schism, when we were one.
I believe this thread has set a record for comments on this blog.
When all’s been said about the principles involved, I’m afraid we’re left with the practical situation that annulment really has become “divorce for Catholics.” I wonder if the sheer trouble and uncertainty involved are any greater than was the case with civil divorce fifty or sixty years ago. And I think the concern voiced by Renee has a great deal of justification.
Chesterton remarks somewhere that in the early days of legal divorce, when it was extremely rare, no decent man would have married a woman thinking that he might divorce her later. Similarly, no Catholic a generation (or two?) ago would have thought “If it doesn’t work out I can always get an annulment.”
Some degree of inhibition for this tendency may be provided by the fact that only a halfway serious Catholic would care one way or another what the Church thought of his marriage.
Another aspect of this is that it shows the limits of law as a tool in any delicate situation. It simply can’t always do justice to both the people who really do have invalid marriages and those whose valid marriages are being questioned.
Justin may be talking about Orthodox practice “when we were one,” but that cannot be the operative criterion in deciding what is the true teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. It does not even allow us, as Catholics, at least, the leisure of uncertainty. The Orthodox practice, at least, and the Roman doctrine contradict each other. The only alternative in such a case is to follow Rome, if she has spoken authoritatively, as she has on marriage. If a sacramental marriage is indissoluble, then remarriage is not possible, unless one admits bigamy. If remarriage is impossible, then sexual union with anyone besides one’s spouse is adultery. I don’t see any way around it.
Uh, unless one gets an annulment, which apparently anyone can do…
So on the one hand we have a Church which upholds the indissolubility of marriage in principle, but in fact allows any of its members to remarry at will. On the other hand is a Church which admits that marriages can fail, and allows, as a matter of mercy, remarriage in non-sacramental unions [I grant that there can be abuses of this as well].
Which is more faithful to the doctrine that Our Lord proposed?
In principle, I think the Catholic position more defensible, but in practice- as exemplified by the case of my friends- I think the Orthodox more honest…
“Leisure of uncertainty”? What about the uncertainty that any of our marriages might not be dissolved by some diocesan bureaucrats?
As Maclin notes and I noted above, there appears to be a stronger holding of true marriage in the secular world than there is within marriage tribunals. It would appear that what is deemed offensive to God would be such things as psychological condition, etc. Paul seemed to take more offense at the polygamy going on amidst the pagans. I really think that we have divorced marriage to a large extent from the natural law. Reading Saint Thomas I come away with the idea that marriage was de facto once children came to be. There seems to be an allowance for severe mental incapitation as a reason to say no marriage exists, but the essense seems to be to establish if the natural marriage was valid.
Which is more faithful to Our Lord?
The Roman teaching is more faithful, while the practice of Roman clergy is not (at least right now). Nothing new there; the road to hell is paved with the bones of priests, lined with the skulls of bishops. Orthodox teaching on marriage and re-marriage, it appears, is not faithful and neither is Orthodox practice.
“Leisure of uncertainty” referred to what I perceive to be a trait of the modern mind — an embrace of uncertainty that allows one to waver in, and enjoy, an uncommited skepticism. It is the pleasant angst that absolves from commitment.
“The only alternative in such a case is to follow Rome, if she has spoken authoritatively, as she has on marriage”
Except that there are some “uniates” who at least until very recently the ancient Eastern canons(maybe the Melkites still do) with full permission from Rome. I think you’re making the common mistake of assuming Latin theology = doctrine, which is not the Catholic teaching, let alone defensible by tradition.
It is indeed Protestant to say that long-standing Church tradition, which has had the support of saints, fathers, bishops, patriarchs, councils, and popes (again, his legates were the ones abusing it and it was clearly not an issue until fairly recently, if ever), and say that it doesn’t mesh with our current reading of the Bible and so must be pitched. Enter into the ethos and the mind of the Fathers who clearly had a better grasp of Christ’s teaching than you or I and then we can critique. The Orthodox have never changed their practice from before the schism; if anything has changed it is certain Roman Catholics’ opinions of that practice. I don’t think the Orthodox have to apologize for this.
A certain poster on sergesblog.blogspot.com (scroll down to the post linking to this discussion) has a pretty good explanation of the Orthodox practice, which has a very different flavor than the straw-man conception most RCs seem to have.
For the record, St. Basil the Great:
“In the case of those who marry a third time they laid down the same guide, in proportion, as in the case of marrying a second time; namely one year for the second marriage (some authorities say two years); for a third marriage men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had five husbands, he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of a third marriage we have accepted a seclusion of five years [i.e. permitted no further than the narthex], not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift [i.e. permitted into the nave, but barred from the Mysteries], and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.”
This canon was approved and adopted at the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Whether or not a canon can be adapted for pastoral reasons, it is a real stretch to condemn a canon approved by three infallible, Ecumenical councils as being immoral and heterodox, even if one doesn’t believe that the infallibility covers the canons.
We certainly have a number of experts on annulments, from among the ranks of those who have never participated in one. For the record, I have. Having done so, I can tell you all with certainty, that something which happens in large numbers does not necessarily make it either easy, automatic, or inevitable.
(Why, David, how DARE you speak from experience!)
To clarify, I have been most enlightened by the writings of the Fathers on this matter, having some ongoing interest in Catholic-Orthodox relations. That being said, I am (unlike some others, from what I can observe) loathe to place too much responsibility on “too many annulments.” First, because to say this implies that an excess can be quantified (in other words, we have yet to establish how many is too many), and second, because it APPEARS to place the blame too readily on those with the least control over the situation. I return to my initial post on this thread, in which I highlight the collateral effects of the culture’s attack on the family, and I stand behind them.
According to my reading, the Uniates had to ascribe to the following formula by Urban VIII: “Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage.” Further, the Council of Trent declared, dogmatically, “If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him anathema.” And further the Council declared: “If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party –not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema.” Surely, this is more than mere “Latin theology”? Or does Justin hold that, since the Orthodox practice differs, the Roman Church’s perennial teaching (buttressed by an ecumenical council teaching dogmatically) is up for grabs? Or is it his contention that sacramental marriage, though indissoluble, may be dissolved?
The quote from St. Basil proves nothing. It speaks only to remarriage — but whether remarriage after divorce or death is unclear. I do not know the canons (perhaps Justin can direct me to his source, but if they say no more than Basil, I see no conflict between them and the Council of Trent.) As I understand it, in the early centuries, even remarriage after death was more than frowned upon, and considered vile after the first remarriage. As late as 1957, Pope Pius XII could say, “Although the Church does not condemn remarriage, she has a marked predilection for the souls who wish to remain faithful to their spouses and to the perfect symbolism of the sacrament of matrimony.” Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement is only a dim echo of the attitude of the Church in the early centuries.
Christopher- the term “Uniate” is considered offensive to Eastern Catholics; kindly refrain from using it.
Secondly, there is a lot of debate about whether Trent, or other councils of the Western Church, should be considered “Ecumenical” when they clearly did not include the bishops of the East. Most Eastern Catholics consider them “Western Councils”, not without authority but hardly of the same stature as the Seven Ecumenical Councils….
And David- How many annulments qualifies as “too many”? How about when anyone can get an annulment?
Clearly, the situation in the US today, when apparently valid marriages do not exist if any partner to one wants out, is out of control.
Or do you deny that anyone can get an annulment? How many are refused?
Christopher, I’ll have to get back to you re St. Basil and the canonical history, because I’m not home right now and don’t have my sources.
re what the Uniates subscribed to, the above agreement does not cover the Melkites, who didn’t unify until the 18th Cent., and who I believe followed the Orthodox practice for quite some time.
It’s also difficult to use Trent when arguing with Orthodox, since the Orthodox don’t accept it as Ecumenical. Even Paul VI acknowledged this when he stated that subsequent councils shouldn’t be seen in the same light as the first Seven.
You also don’t seem to understand Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox do not believe that sacramental marriage can be dissolved. Indeed, they believe that it lasts eternally in some respects. Subsequent marriages in the Orthodox church are not considered sacramental, whether due to divorce or death–seen by the difference in ritual, in which the couple is not “crowned” and the prayers are penitential. The allowance of subsequent marriage is a way of dealing with a seemingly difficult situation–how do we deal with those who will re-marry no matter what the Church says? Do we disregard them althogether and consign them to a life outside the Church? The Eastern practice has been since before the schism to deal with it by temporary excommunication, but to subsequently make some provision for their participation in the Church. Such persons are still barred from any liturgical or clerical participation (it is a bar to ordination).
While we’re on the topic, what is the patristic and scriptural basis for annulments? It seems to me that such a process still results in some very difficult situations. For example, if my first marriage is annulled, have I been fornicating for the last x number of years or at least sinning? If not, then your view is similar to that of Orthodox concession for subsequent non-sacramental marriage. If so, then how can someone who is married ever be sure they should be receiving the Eucharist, since they can never really know that they aren’t living in a sinful state (even if the knowledge element is sketchy)–evidenced by people in very “solid” “Christian” marriages who 20+ years later get an annulment, such as the situation that started this conversation. How can a priest ever be sure that when he blesses a marriage in the name of the Church the couple is really married. You really can never be sure that you are not having illicit relations. Moreover, there is a long-standing tradition in the Church (while largely abandoned in today’s Catholic Church), that a man who is divorced or who has had illicit relations is barred from the priesthood. If a man has had an annulment but seeks ordination (not uncommon today), where does he fall? Either he has broken a sacramental relationship, or he has committed fornication.
In other words, if the allegation is that Orthodox bless adultery, it seems that Catholics either bless fornication, or they consign all married people to a life of doubt regarding their salvation.
Justin, I am not attempting to argue with Orthodox. If you are Orthodox, forgive me. I am arguing with Catholics, for whom the Council of Trent is considered binding. Paul VI’s opinion of the purely western councils was expressed as an opinion. It has no binding authority. (As you know, not every papal statement is of the same authority.)But even if it did, the pope did not say that western councils were not infallible, when they taught dogmatically.
I shall have to do more research to see where there is a patristic basis for annulments, if there is one. But for the Catholic, there does not have to be a direct patristic or even scriptural reference to annulment. The notion is a logical consequence of the teaching about the nature of marriage (derived from scripture and tradition) being indissoluble but requiring free consent and knowledge on the part of the two persons contracting it. Where this is lacking, there is no marriage, and thus a declaration of that fact, which an annulment is, is possible. When the Church grants an annulment it is not by that fact blessing fornication or adultery, since a subsequent valid marriage renders sexual intercourse permissible. While abuse of the annulment process is possible, this does not render the notion of annulment illicit.
One probably can never be sure, in some cases at least, that one’s annulment is truly valid — at least with the certainty of faith. One may be morally certain, with the same certainty that one believes that any particular priest is truly confecting the Eucharist or that one is truly forgiven in confession. If one was in a relatinship that was not truly a marriage, but he thought it a marriage, he may, objectively speaking, have committed fornication, but since he did not will the fornication, he is not personally guilty of it. If one receives an invalid annulment and remarries, he is not guilty of the sin if he genuinely thinks his annulment was valid. Sin is more a matter of the will than of external acts.
But again I say, that if marriage is indissoluble, one who has been in a valid marriage who contracts a new “marriage” while the former marriage subsists is either (at least objectively) committing adultery or in a bigamous relationship. One either is married to two people, or having relations with someone to whom one is not married. To admit remarriage of the truly married in theory is to admit these consequences. How do the Orthodox get around this?
The Catholic Church does not admit this in theory, while churchmen may actually countenance it in practice or, through some mistake in judgment, allow it. The Orthodox churches, it seems to me, admit this in theory. They say one can marry someone while still being married to another.
Oh, Lord, Daniel. I of course don’t want to be offensive. But I have known Eastern Catholics who call themselves Uniates, even proudly. So it’s only offensive to some Eastern Catholics. And when referring to Eastern Catholics at the time of the unions, it is more convenient to use “uniates,” because that’ what they were. They were coming into full union with Rome.
Either councils like Trent and Vatican I exercised the supreme teaching authority or they did not. If they did, then they are the equals to Nicaea and Chalcedon (just as the pope, when teaching ex cathedra, is of equal authority to a council). You might want to quibble about how “ecumenical” they are in a sociological sense, and you are welcome to such speculations as far I am concerned. Lord knows I’ve indulged in them. But the councils are infallible where they teach dogmatically, so it all comes down to the same thing. They are binding on the Catholic conscience.
“Uniate” at one time was innocuous, but it has been adopted by the Orthodox as a term of insult, thus is offensive to Eastern Catholics.
In general, one should call a minority whatever they prefer, the way one would not these days [I assume] call African Americans “colored”…
As for the Councils, perhaps it is not so stark. Maybe Trent and Vatican II were local councils under the Patriarch of the West – the Pope of Rome- and authoritative, but not on the same level as the great Ecumenical Councils.
They are hardly equal to Chalcedon and Nicea, and definitely express a local [Latin] mindset. For example, Trent on “Purgatory” can hardly be said to express the universal mind of the Church. It clearly is an expression of a particular, Western, way of thinking about spiritual reality.
Daniel,
You are walking a road which leads away from the Faith. Seeing the world through the eyes of the schismatics will lead you to their same destination.
“They are hardly equal to Chalcedon and Nicea, and definitely express a local [Latin] mindset”
Pope Paul VI would agree. Forgive me if I offend using “uniate”, it’s a practice I got into when I was one.
Christopher, I am Orthodox, and a former Catholic seminarian. For the record, it’s not really my intent to bash Catholic practice in this regard, more to explain the Orthodox teaching. Nevertheless, I’m still interested in the Patristic or Scriptural justification for the Catholic practice, since the Catholic Church is a church of tradition.
“If one was in a relatinship that was not truly a marriage, but he thought it a marriage, he may, objectively speaking, have committed fornication, but since he did not will the fornication, he is not personally guilty of it.”
Christ calls us to union with Him. The Church’s goal is to aid in the process of theosis (if you’ll forgive the use of an Eastern ascetical/theological term) by God’s grace. Putting someone in a position where they never really know whether they are fornicating or not seems a mean trick from God. Even if one doesn’t will the fornication, living in an objectively, gravely sinful state would impede theosis at best. Also, while the whole terminology of annulment is logical, it seems to me that it would therefore apply to all sacraments. Does the Church have a mechanism for judging the intention of a priest performing the Eucharist? Are any other sacraments, such as ordination, ever annulled? No, probably because it starts to sound like Donatism. Why only marriage?
Here is where we come to one of the biggest differences between Catholic and Orthodox theology. The East sees the priest as minister of the sacrament, as with all other sacraments. It is not a contract, indeed no vows are taken at all. It is the priest blessing, that is, in the name of God (“what GOD has joined, let no man rend asunder”).
Nonetheless, the Orthodox Church absolutely believes that marriage is indissoluble and even eternal. The Fathers of the Church make clear that any subsequent marriage, whether due to death or divorce, is indeed adultry. Nonetheless, as St. Epiphanios of Cyprus (+403) states, “the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness.” Early Church practice was clear, that only the first marriage was blessed in the Church as sacramental. Any subsequent marriage was contracted only civilly, with a penance imposed by the Church before re-addmittance to the sacraments.
A more clear example of this than St. Basil’s canon is canon 87 of the Quinisext Counicl, subsequently adopted at the Seventh Ecumencial Council IIRC. This canon makes clear that “He who leaves teh wife given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be ‘weepers’ for a year, ‘hearers’ for two years, ‘prostrators’ for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation.”
In other words, the Orthodox Church absolutely considers divorce and remarriage sinful. But the Church is then left with the fact that it has happened. What now? Many, because of their weakness, will not leave their second marriage or refrain from marrying. As such, the Orthodox Church will grant permission to some to re-marry under strict conditions (typically more strict than what is required to get an annulment). This quasi-marriage carries with it the requirement of temporary excommunication and is not seen as sacramental. As Fr. John Meyendorff states in his book “Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective”, speaking about the above canonical tradition, “The Church, therefore, neither ‘recognized’ divorce, nor ‘gave’ it. Divorce was considered a grave sin; but the Church never failed in giving to sinners a ‘new chance,’ and was ready to readmit them if they repented.”
You state: “The Catholic Church does not admit this in theory”
I think it does in a sense, since as you state you can never really know whether the person you are having relations with is truly your sacramental wife. One never knows, unless the Church states that she is not after an annulment. When I say that the Catholic Church blesses fornication, I’m not speaking of the second marriage, but of the first. That marriage was blessed by a Catholic priest using the Catholic ritual; their names were in the marriage registry of the parish, etc., and yet in reality they were not married but still had relations. Whether intentional or not, the Catholic Church seems to be saying that they committed fornication with the (unknowing?) countenance of the Church. I don’t think that perpetual agnosticism is a proper attitude toward a sacrament, and smacks too strongly of a sort of Donatism (since the couple are the minsters of the sacrament). The surplus of the Church provides for the other sacraments, but not marriage it seems.
Forgive me if my posting is somewhat muttled (my wife just had a baby so I’m not sleeping all that well). For a better explanation of Orthodox/Early Church practice, see the above book by Fr. John Meyendorff.
Christopher Zehnder,
Uniate is child’s play no matter how intended compared with the Ukrainians I’ve known in their description of the Orthodox.
I once made the blunder of putting the Russian Orthodox three bar cross on a the design for a proposed Ukrainian church, it was a short eye opening experience in understanding how deep the enmity with the Russian Orthodox extends.
An enmity well grounded by experience.
I think the difference of who administers the sacrament, the priest or the couple, is interesting discussion, but not really getting to the point. No matter who administers it, the Sacrament is indissoluble.
The discussion about transferring the idea of determining nullity to the other Sacraments is interesting too. Who would be interviewed and what would be the criteria to see if my infant baptism was invalid? The priest? The parents? What about the repetitive Sacraments of Communion, Confession? Reviewed on a instance-by-instance basis? If you end up at the point of saying an annulment process only makes sense for the “vocational” sacraments of holy orders and matrimony, then why not extend the option of laitization in priesthood to marriage and solve the issue easily? I suppose the annulment process is unique to the sacrament of marriage because is it the only one that involves two souls at once, each with free will apart from the other, joined together into one.
Justin’s most recent comments aptly illustrate the problematic nature of annulments. The intent that the idea of annulments upholds the indissolubility of the marriage covenant is true, but it also logically forces the conclusion that once the tribunal finds that the union is null, then any sexual union during the years of “pretending” to be married was fornication, whether the couple knew it or not. Whether they are guilty of personal sin can be debated, but as Justin says, the objective sin still has its negative effects. Wondering if each act of marital union is sinful (because one’s marriage is invalid but one just doesn’t know it yet) is surely not what our Lord wants us to experience in this Sacrament. And what about the children? How can they be considered anything but truly illegitimate, when it is realized that their parents were never married?
On the other hand, the practice in the East of having a legitimate second marriage, albiet after a period of pennance, just doesn’t seem to jive with basic marriage theology. And in general the Church doesn’t give out “plan b” for those of us who feel too weak to make it on “plan a”. All are called the the same standard.
To brutally summarize some posts above, the West is more logical in theory rather than practice, but the East is more honest (i.e. realistic) in practice than in theory. Even if each was done perfectly in it’s intent without abuses, they would still both be problematic, it seems to me.
When I combine an eternal perspective with the natural law, this is what I come up with. (If I was the Church…) When a marriage is begun, it is for life. Period. Indissoluble. It should be taken extremely seriously (like deciding to have a heart transplant, but more so), by both priest and prospective couple, because what they do they can never undo. The only window of time for determining that the marriage was null would be before conception of the first child. By this I mean null with the option to separate and marry another if they choose. After conception of the first child (which might be on the wedding night, or as we know in some cases, before), the marriage could be determined to be null, but there would be absolutely no option to marry another. The only option would be to marry the one you conceived children with. (That’s the natural law kicking in.) In other words, once you have a child, if you get an annulment, you and your spouse have to work out your differences, go to confession, and contract a valid marriage with each other. Of course no one would really ever seek annulments anymore, for after all, the only reason (practically speaking) to get an annulment is so you can licitly have sex with someone else, and if that wasn’t an option, you would just work on the marriage you had instead of trying to start over. Because of sin, there would still be broken families and separated couples. But they would understand that they had blown their one shot at marriage and they could suffer apart as long as they chose, or at any time begin the healing and forgiveness of coming back together, using the abundant grace of the Sacrament that was poured out upon them on their wedding day. Some would be able to do that eventually, and some never would. But the key point is that the hope and potential would always be there, not taken away by a remarriage or annulment.
This practice would appear to be heavy on the justice, and light on the mercy, I know. I love and treasure a Church that tries to manifest both of God’s qualities of infinite justice and infinite mercy. This approach would have its sticky points, but I believe it could be the most merciful way in the long run, for all parties involved, including the children.
It is so confounding to think that one partner can be completely faithful, and the other choose to not be. Is the faithful partner to be punished that severely for the other’s sins? I would painfully say yes, and all that they suffer for perhaps the rest of their lives can be offered up for countless souls. Surely these suffering souls would have the benefit of God’s grace (even the grace of their marriage) operating in a Church that was ready to lift up and support them, so that we wouldn’t have to compromise and allow remarriage due to human weakness. After all, in the worst case, it would only be suffering for the rest of their lives. (This is where the eternal perspective kicks in.) Heaven is forever. Marriage is not.
No more annulments. Do it for the children. Do it for the Church. There will always be suffering here. We won’t have Heaven on earth. But one day we will have Heaven. And Heaven is our final goal. Not perfect blissful marriage on earth.
What do you scholars (and otherwise more learned than me) think? Would this be a legitimate stance for the Church to take? Maybe it could be the unified stance that East and West could take on marriage as the East comes back under the authority of Peter.
Interesting proposal, Dan, but perhaps too “spiritual” for an earthbound Church; like it or not, the Church is for sinners…
The question of nullifying Holy Orders is an interesting one.
If it paralleled the marriage annulment, the priest in question would not have access to the testimony of his seminary professors, fellow priests, disgruntled parishoners, and other witnesses to the nullity of his ordination, just as the testimony of the aggrieved spouse is secret in the annulment process.
Does anyone think for a minute that this would be tolerated?
Yet in an annulment, you are not given a chance to respond to the account that the one who wants the annulment gives to the tribunal. You are not even told what they have said!
Justin- As there is another Justin who posts here, could you add the initial of your last name to avoid confusion? Thanks.
Sorry for the name confusion.
I think the reason that the Church doesn’t get into the annulment business for Orders is the grave reprocutions. If the priest’s ordination wasn’t valid, then all his other sacraments weren’t valid. And what happens if it’s a bishop–all of his ordinations wouldn’t be valid either. From an Eastern perspective, that would include marriages, too. Does one then research every penitent he’s absolved, every couple he’s married, every person he’s confirmed, etc. and re-sacramentalize then? Re-bury the dead? No, that’s a modified Donatism. The Church has held from the beginning that if the bishop puts his hands on your head, you’re it for better or worse, similar to the Eastern approach to marriage. The subjective psychoanalysis of intent and impediment makes it very difficult. In the early canons, even when a priest is discovered to have had an impediment to his ordination only after the fact, he is usually laicized (the Greek word is “Shaved”) but his ordination and sacraments are never called into question, unless, ex., he wasn’t baptized or something of that nature. The East seems to be taking a similar approach to marriage.
Daniel E, forgive me if I say that your proposal sounds extremely Western, in that the East tends to view things as “here’s the ideal, let’s try to get there,” whereas the Western rule tends to be “here’s the minimum, don’t do it and you’re seriously sinning.” A case in point is fasting rules, where the West has severely reduced its rules, which bind strictly, whereas the East maintains a very strict regimine, but understands that many will not follow it in toto (in consultation with their confessor), even if many do.
In your proposal, there is no room for weakness, growth, condescension. As much as a strong stance is necessary in the face of modern assaults on the family, making no room for human weakness and error does not seem the Christian approach (cf. St. Cyprian of Carthage and the crisis re apostasy). We use penance (not today’s “three Hail Mary’s”) to express the Church’s disapproval of certain things and teach regarding the sinful nature of the action (the Eastern Church maintains such penances for many sins), but there has to be some method of dealing with the ugly realities of human weakness and sin–always with the goal of healing the person, such as the quotes from St. Epiphanios or Fr. John quoted above. The Church is a spiritual hospital (see Met. Hierotheos of Nefpaktos), not a court of law or a prison.
I think the difference between matrimony and the other sacraments (as explained by Frank Sheed) is that marriage is a sacrament based on a contract. Any human contract admits the possibility of being invalid through some fault or misjudgment of the contracting parties. It’s the contract that is judged invalid when an annulment is granted. And if there is no contract, there is no sacrament.
It seems to me pretty clear that many annulments are granted today which are invalid. This is not to say that some increase could not be expected since many immature and uninstructed nominal Catholics have weddings in Catholic churches, but from the example of Daniel’s that started off this thread, and other examples known to most of us, immature couples are far from the only explanation. Only God knows how many true marriages were declared null by cowardly and faithless tribunals and how many were really false unions.
I entirely agree with Christoper Zehnder’s statements that Catholics simply cannot consider the Eastern Orthodox practice as a possibility. The remedy is a return to holiness, or at least sanity. The Church has taught infallibly in this area, e.g. at Trent. I have heard Eastern Catholics in the past speak of Trent as a “local council” – but this does not seem to be the understanding of the Church on this matter and I don’t see how any Catholic could entertain that opinion.
As to Rome’s toleration of divorce among Easterns, I don’t know the historical facts, but I wonder whether it might have been toleration of a situation which could not be improved at that moment. Can anyone cite an explicit approval of divorce on the part of Rome?
It’s very sad that the modern American Church no longer supports traditional Catholic family life and marriage. If it did all the hand-wringing about annulments and such might not be necessary. Maybe our priests and bishops think we have everything together and don’t need to be ministered to. Heh.
Daniel, to answer your question:
“How many annulments qualifies as ‘too many’? How about when anyone can get an annulment?”
Have we established that “anyone can”? I know of those who cannot.
“How many are refused?”
I don’t know. Nor do I have to. I’m not the one posing the challenge here, so the burden does not lie with me. It is, rather, on those who claim there are “too many.”
In any case, why, in the present state of our culture, is the prospect of invalid marriages not a possibility? Otherwise, I’d have to conclude that the institution of the family is not nearly under as much attack as some would suggest.
Can anyone tell me when the contractual theory of marriage came about in the West? I’ve never seen it in any patristic text, nor is it apparent in any early liturgies. It’s certainly not the Eastern theology, doctrine, or practice–only in the West does one see vows.
David,
Your point that others can’t really judge without all the facts is always worth keeping in mind. Nevertheless, one hears of so many cases like the one Daniel N. cites in the original post that it can’t be surprising that questions would be raised as to whether all these marriages were really invalid.
I’m not competent to discuss the theology and ecclesiology of marriage (or anything else) in the Eastern and Western Churches. However, I do know what the Donatist heresy was, and had already been thinking of the comparison before someone mentioned it above. At the simple common-sensical level, it’s inevitable that with cases like this being fairly widespread people would begin to doubt whether we can ever know that any marriage is valid. And it’s equally inevitable that a sense that marriage is not really indissoluble would begin to set in.
We’re not talking about kids who got married in a rush, who were non- or non-practicing Christians, and clearly did not have anything like the Catholic concept of marriage in mind, but about people who to all possible appearances knew what they were doing and stuck with it for ten or twenty or thirty years.
As for the Eastern and Western approaches, I also had been thinking what Daniel Ellis says above: …the West is more logical in theory rather than practice, but the East is more honest (i.e. realistic) in practice than in theory.
Maclin:
Thank you for your response, and for raising a good point regarding the possible loss of faith, or at least scandal, via adverse appearances. That being said, I should think it worthwhile when delving into “what is to be done?” that we look not to the end result of a problem, but to the “radix,” the root. It is easy to point to victims of failed marriages and wonder if they’re getting off easy. Alas, things are not always what they appear.
The wife and mother in Daniel’s account must still live with herself. Assuming that is easy enough, she must face her children.
Whoever she is, her troubles are only beginning. Do not envy her.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I noticed today that the Catholic Encyclpaedia’s article on marriage states that a marriage between a baptized and an unbaptized person is not sacramental. While this is tangential to the above discussion, it does seem to illustrate a situation where the Catholic Church will bless a marriage that is not sacramental.
David- I am not denying the possibility of invalid marriages; I noted that I have seen many instances of obvious annulment.
But so far as I know denial of annulment is practicaly unheard of. I am also convinced that the process is inherently unjust; in what other court is one not allowed to hear the testimony of witnesses? Or even the “charges”?
And if the family is indeed under attack, I would suggest the Church is not aiding in the defense by Her current praxis -in this country anyway- regarding annulment.
And Justin- I noted that the Church permits non-sacramental marriages to unbaptized persons, wondering if this might be some sort of precedent, or bridge to understanding the Eastern approach.
Justin,
Congratulations on the birth of your child. I hope you can soon get more sleep.
It appears that the canons of the Qunisext Council were never approved by Rome. The council, in fact, was held after the Seventh Ecumenical Council as a continuation of its sixth session; but the reigning pope at the time specifically rejected them. A century later, Hadrian I seemed to receive them in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, though it is far from clear that he was doing anything other than recognizing their force in the East. He himself certainly did not promulgate them for his patriarchate. But what seems clear — they don’t have the authority of an ecumenical council.
As to the canon to which Justin refers, I append it below.
CANON LXXXVII.
SHE who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.” If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance.]
The last bracketed section does not appear in all manuscripts. But it suggests a possible interpretation of the canon — that the last case concerns those who have left their wives and married another but have not remained in what the canon clearly calls an adulterous relationship. Doing penance would make no sense if it were not accompanied by amendment of life — rather like doing penance while continuing to possess stolen goods.
But even if the bracketed section is not a part of the original canon, it does no violence to it. It is perfectly reasonable to say that the canon is intended to apply, in the last case, to those who have at least resolved to abstain from sexual congress in a second liaison.
As for other points made about certainty — the Catholic Church does teach that no one can be certain with the certainty of received revelation that any particular sacramental act is valid. The Council of Trent makes this point. Revelation only tells us that, for instance, when a priest pronounces the words of consecration with the very general intent to do what the Church does in such cases, the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood. It does not tell us that Priest So and So will have the right intention. In such cases, we can have only moral certainty. This conclusion is inevitable if one posits that the intention of the minister is integral to the confection of the sacrament. And it is not Donatism, for one does not have to be holy to have the proper intent to do as the Church does.
The Church has annulled holy orders — for instance, when Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid. Why she doesn’t do it more often, I really can’t say. It’s a matter I shall have to study.
And finally (I really must get back to work), whether the Church blesses a non-sacramental marriage is not the point. The question is whether the Church teaches that she can bless or allow a sexual relationship between two people, one of whom is sacramentally married.
Tom- I haven’t heard any Byzantine Catholics refer to Trent as a “local council”; more common is “General Council of the West”, which seems more appropriate and a bit weightier.
While holding that such councils did not teach error, it should be noted that sometimes they did teach with a certain Roman, juridical mindset. To cite the example I referred to before, when Trent spoke of Purgatory the emphasis was on the justice of God, and “temporal punishments” and so on, to the point that many Orthodox will insist that they don’t believe in Purgatory. Upon questioning, they do believe that the soul continues the process of theosis after death, and that this includes further purification, and that said souls benefit from our prayers. The term “Purgatory” has become so identified with a Western way of looking at things that they end up saying they don’t believe in something that they clearly do believe! [I would note that the CCC presents the doctrine in a way that is much more palatable to Eastern Christians.]
However, an Ecumenical Council would by definition include the whole Church, east and west.
To Daniel Nichols,
I ask: do you mean to say that councils such as Trent and Vatican I are not as authoratitive as the “great Ecumenical Councils”? Is not Vatican I, for instance, when it defines papal infalliblity, as binding as any of the first seven councils? Or are you saying one may dissent from this and other doctrines defined by Western councils? May one deny Trent’s teaching on purgatory?
I said they did not teach error; indeed as convened by and presided over by the Roman Pontiff they carry much weight for the entire Church.
Certainly one may not dissent from the substance of what is taught. But the substance should not be confused with the mindset or the language in which the teaching is framed: even when I was Roman, I instinctively was repulsed by the Tridentine way of presenting Purgatory.
I did not, however, have to head East to find more satisfying explanations: St Catherine of Genoa, and C.S. Lewis did very well, thank you.
And as I said, the current magisterial teaching is more in accord with Eastern thought.
Daniel,
Sorry. We cross posted. I would agree that a council might not be as ecumenical in its effect as one might desire. It can use language which is current in one sector of the Church but not in another — as, perhaps, in the case of purgatory.
But is it representation from all sectors of the Church necessary to make a council ecumenical? Did any of the first seven councils have representatives of the non-Byzantine Churches of Mesopotamia and Armenia or of the Malabarese of India?
Or may it be that what makes a council ecumenical is its intent to exercise authority for the entire Church, as opposed to a synod, which is local in its intended sway?
Did the Seven Ecumenical Councils have representatives of the Armenian or Indian churches? I don’t know, and some of the particular churches rejected at least some of the pronouncements of the Councils [though apparently this was more a matter of style than of substance; several of the Oriental Churches have now been recognized as Orthodox, even sending students to Orthodox seminaries. ]
It is likely that in those days, “Ecumenical” meant the accesible world; ie, the Roman world, whether East or West.
Trent and the Vatican councils only invited, as voting participants, Western bishops.
Daniel:
Thank you for your response.
That we continue to dwell on the end result (that is, the prospect of “too many annulments”) only reinforces my point that we refuse to look at the root cause. Whether there are “too many annulments” cannot be answered, until we address the issue of “too many invalid marriages.” Whether there are or not I don’t know, but society (and in many cases, the local Church) isn’t much help. The local Church sure as hell wasn’t any help when MY first marriage was falling apart.
If my marriage was so publicly sacred, why wasn’t it worth publicly defending? Where was the bishop when my so-called wife left me for another man? Why was she not publicly censured, in keeping with canon law, for not seeking permission to separate from her husband?
You ask: “I am also convinced that the process is inherently unjust; in what other court is one not allowed to hear the testimony of witnesses? Or even the ‘charges’?”
I’m not aware that this is a problem with tribunals. I do know that while civil law in the USA is based upon English common law, canon law is based upon old Roman law. The latter has a greater role for the use of discretion. That being said, the accused still has the opportunity to review the charges against them, through what is called “the publication of the Acts.”
The fact that I may benefit from a declaration of nullity does not make me part of the problem. Most of the comments could be taken to imply that I am, and I for one get sick and tired of it. I wonder if anyone here spends nearly as much time lamenting the state of Catholic marriage preparation in this country.
Fortunately, I know you all mean well.
We are discussing two issues here, nullity of marriage and, as a result of that issue, certain issues of Latin/Greek theology/praxis and Catholic/Eastern Orthodox theology/praxis. A couple of quick points. There were Eastern Catholic bishops at Vatican I, and of course, many at Vatican II. I don’t know about Trent, however, I suspect that there were at least a few Greek bishops from south Italy, who have always been in communion with Rome.
I believe (though I am not certain of this – does anyone know) that there were hardly any Latin bishops present at a couple of the first seven Councils. But I thought it was acceptance by the Roman Pontiff which ratified the decrees of a Council and his, and the Council’s, intent in teaching either for the whole Church or merely for some particular churches, which made the distinction between an Ecumenical or a local council. But I would agree that if an entire section of the Church were absent (as perhaps at Trent), the resulting decrees might have been expressed better had more bishops been present from other parts of the Church. But this does not cast any doubt on the decrees promulgated. For otherwise, by refusing to attend, bishops could, as it were, hold the Church captive and make it impossible to hold an Ecumenical Council. For I’m sure that Rome would have been delighted to have had Eastern prelates at Trent. Rome had just spent considerable efforts, at Lyons and Florence, to bring about reunion. It was the Patriarch of Constantinople, under pressure from the Turks, as I understand it, who broke the union agreed upon at Florence.
Christopher, I will get back to you by the end of the day.
I just had to respond quickly to this one:
“It was the Patriarch of Constantinople, under pressure from the Turks, as I understand it, who broke the union agreed upon at Florence.”
That’s a very one-sided view of history. There is plenty of evidence that many of the Eastern monastics, clergy, and especially laity at the time rejected the union. While the Turks granted some political support to this for their own ends, the Eastern Church was distancing itself from these decisions on its own, and indeed was never accepted in many quarters.
Just as a side note: the Quinisext Council occured after the Sixth Ecumenical Council. I agree that the West has never subscribed to them, but they do have force of law in the East, as recognized by Popes Hadrian and Constantine.
The proper means of interpreting the canons is to look at how they have been enforced, which has historically been the same as today:
“The fourth marriage of the emperor Leo the Philosopher (886–912), which was forbidden by the laws of the Greek church, caused a great schism in the East (905).311  The Patriarch Nicolas Mysticus solemnly protested and was deposed (906), but Pope Sergius III. (904–911), instead of siding with suffering virtue as Pope Nicolas had done, sanctioned the fourth marriage (which was not forbidden in the West) and the deposition of the conscientious patriarch.
Leo on his death-bed restored the deposed patriarch (912). A Synod of Constantinople in 920, at which Pope John X. was represented, declared a fourth marriage illegal, and made no concessions to Rome. The Emperor Constantine, Leo’s son, prohibited a fourth marriage by an edict; thereby casting a tacit imputation on his own birth. The Greek church regards marriage as a sacrament, and a necessary means for the propagation of the race, but a second marriage is prohibited to the clergy, a third marriage is tolerated in laymen as a sort of legal concubinage, and a fourth is condemned as a sin and a scandal”
From http://www.bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/4_ch05.htm
These canons have had the approval of multiple popes. The West’s problem with them only seem to arise post-scholasticism, and particularly post-Trent. That’s approximately 1000 years at least where the East practiced these canons with approval of all Eastern bishops and the Western pope.
“The Church has annulled holy orders — for instance, when Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid.”
This is comparing apples and oranges. The Catholic Church never ordained those clerics in the first place.
“question is whether the Church teaches that she can bless or allow a sexual relationship between two people, one of whom is sacramentally married. ”
Given the fact that no one can ever really be sure that an annulment is legit or that a marriage is really valid, it would seem that the Catholic Church does potentially allow it, even if it doesn’t like it.
Justin,
The example you give is not to the point. Leo VI’s fourth marriage did not follow his abandonment of his validly married wife. His three previous wives had died. The Qunisext canon deals specifically with a man who abandons his true wife (to whom he is indissolubly bound) and begins a liaison with another woman. Hence, the example you cite does not demonstrate how the canon was applied.
If the Qunisext canon admits to communion a man who, having abandoned his true wife, is having relations with another, it would truly be monstrous. It would effectively be blessing a state of grave injustice. It would be analogous to admitting to communion a man who has stolen the the property of the poor and refuses to restore it. For the man who commits adultery is guilty of a kind of theft; he takes that which belongs to his wife, his body, and gives it to another. St. John Chrysostom makes this point in one of his splendid homilies on marriage.
As for annulling holy orders — it is a matter I would have to think more about, as I have never considered it before. But the question is a sideshow to the one we are discussing. Even if we could fault the Church for not having a tribunal to annul holy orders, that alone would not call into question the propriety of annulling marriages.
This last statement — “given the fact that no one can ever really be sure that an annulment is legit or that a marriage is really valid, it would seem that the Catholic Church does potentially allow it, even if it doesn’t like it” — is really nonsensical. To recognize the possibility of an abuse is not to allow, in the sense of permit, the abuse. If I give my son a knife and tell him how to use it properly, I am not permitting him to cut himself, even if I recognize the possibility of his disregarding my instructions. It is not as if the Church is encouraging or even condoning people to contract invalid marriages.
I guess I didn’t have all the facts on Leo, forgive me. While it is not an appropriate example, I don’t believe there is anyone that doubts that the current Orthodox practice is the same as it was post-schism. The Quinisext canons had the approval of Popes Hadrian and Constantine. We can argue back and forth about the legitimacy of the theology applied there, but I think ultimately neither of us will convince the other. Nevertheless, in such a situation, where you have a tradition dating back so many centuries with the approval as I have stated from the beginning of so many persons of authority within the Church, any argument that it is incorrect requires more than an application of modern theological understanding or formulations applied retroactively to justify it. This is especially the case since the Orthodox have not changed their practice, and at certain times and in certain places Eastern Catholics have applied the same practice with papal approval (when it was dispensation or not, if such a practice is “monstrous”, it stands to reason that the Catholic Church is just as guilty for such monstrosities).
I don’t know that your knife analogy works. According to Catholic theology, one can never know if a couple is fornicating or not. There is no remedy for such a situation in the Catholic schema unless the relationship breaks down and an annulment is sought. Even then, you admitted earlier that one doesn’t know if the annulment is valid. Whenever a Catholic cleric stands up to witness a marriage, he never knows whether or not the persons in front of him will be fornicating that night with his blessing, and indeed some of them will. That’s a nasty situation to be in.
“post-schism”
should read “pre-schism”
Justin,
My knife analogy is apt; quite apt. Think about it some more and you’ll get it.
You state: “I don’t believe there is anyone that doubts that the current Orthodox practice is the same as it was pre-schism.” Well, I doubt it, and the author of the article on divorce in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm)more than doubts it. I’m sure there are more. (I’ll bet you a beer Vladimir Soloviev doubted it.)
You state: “This is especially the case since the Orthodox have not changed their practice, and at certain times and in certain places Eastern Catholics have applied the same practice with papal approval…” Your original point was that the practice of remarriage of those whose true spouses are living was approved by an ecumenical council. This is not true, as we have agreed. Then you said that it was approved by a non-ecumenical council, and approved by a pope for the East. But you have given us no reason to believe that the current Orthodox practice is enshrined in the Quinisext canon you cited. You have also stated, without evidence, that the pope approved the Orthodox practice of divorce for, at least, the Melkites. But you have not demonstrated this. You also state that the Orthodox practice has the approval of “so many persons of authority within the Church,” but you haven’t cited one authority that clearly states what you propose. Can you demonstrate how old the Orthodox practice really is? So far you haven’t.
Now here’s a theory I’ve read, I can’t remember where. According to this theory, after the Christianization of the empire, all cases, civil and otherwise, concerning marriage were given over to the Church in Constantinople. Since imperial law permitted divorce, even divorce proceedings (for unbelievers, at least) came under the competency of the Church. This remained and became confused over time so that Eastern churches began to assume the practice of divorce of believers under oikonomia. The Roman Church never was included under the imperial dispensation and so continued the ancient apostolic practice concerning marriage.
You write: “when it was dispensation or not, if such a practice is ‘monstrous’, it stands to reason that the Catholic Church is just as guilty for such monstrosities.” Yes, if we are talking about individual prelates and tribunals, but no if we are talking about what the Church herself actually ordains. Church law does not permit remarriage of those sacramentally married during the lifetime of both spouses. This is undeniable. It permits the “re-marriage” of those never married. The Orthodox churches permit the remarriage of those sacramentally married during the lifetime of both spouses. They permit one who has committed a grave injustice to continue in that injustice and receive communion. In effect, they say one who is practicing a grave injustice may attain eternal life without true repentance.
Surely even the Orthodox admit a distinction between a law and its application. Surely you all admit that one cannot impugn a law because some abuse it. Surely you understand that one may have moral certainty (certainty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt) without the certainty of faith (a certainty based on revealed knowledge); we have it in most areas of life, after all, and we function just fine. As far as the sacraments go, one is only to baptize an adult if that adult truly believes; but no one can be sure, with the certainty of faith, that any other person believes. Thus, by your reasoning, priests permit sacrilege when they baptize any adult because they can not be certain that the person in question really believes.
I think our discussion underlines the need for a living magisterium to interpret scripture and tradition. The differences in teachings on marriage between Rome and the Orthodox are not simply small matters of discipline but concern a most important sacrament. A sacrament upon which not only the good of individuals rests, but the good of human society.
In then end, what Tom Storck said is the key. The answer to the annulment crisis is not winking at sin, but holiness, to which all are called. The annulment crisis, if such it be, must be confronted by a radical reappropriation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not false compassion. Nothing less.
As for a living magisterium, that is precisely what the Orthodox are using in order to interpret these canons.
As for the Ecumenicity of the Trullan canons, I know that it is not the opinion of the Latin Church that they are Ecumenical. The East, however, clearly sees it different, as they take the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical council as applying to the Trullan Council, for it adopts the canons of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical councils, even though it is agreed that those councils didn’t issue canons. The Trullan council, however, as the ancient canonists Balsamon and Zonaras and the modern canonists St. Nikodemos Hagiorites and Beveridge state, is Quinisext, that is, applying to the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical councils. Otherwise, it is not clear at all what the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical council means. This is the consistent understanding of the East, for which reason it is normal for an Orthodox christian to refer to the Trullan council as having Ecumenical weight.
The article you present provides no authority whatsoever for its assertion that the East changed its discipline in this regard. It is also interesting to note that the non-Chalcedonians maintain a similar practice to the Chalcedonian East, despite a lack of common ecclesiological life for the last ~1600 years. Certainly the Greek practice is as old as the canonists Balsamon and Blastares, and I believe St. Photios. It’s interesting also that no one in saying that the Greeks have changed can point to when. Again, the article’s explanation of St. Epiphanios’s statement, which appears to support Eastern practice, is without any authority and presumes later Western theology. As for what Vladimir Solviev thinks, I couldn’t care less; he was an occultist and a heretic, even by Catholic standards. That modern Catholics think they can use him to bridge to the Orthodox is silly.
Moreover, the article you cite shows certain places in the Latin West which followed similar canons. Even if the author cites them as errors, the question is whether they were ever explicitly condemned, either at that time or in modernity.
re Melkite practice, I can’t give you a specific authority other than what I heard oft-repeated in Byzantine Catholic circles, including a Melkite priest.
Fr. John Meyendorff has a good explanation of the development of Roman/Byzantine law with ecclesiastical practice in the East in his above-cited book. He makes the argument that while divorce proceedings indeed eventually were passed to the Church, which he admits was improper, the allowance of non-sacramental remarriage is prior. I recommend you read his book, as it does a better job than I can do.
“Thus, by your reasoning, priests permit sacrilege when they baptize any adult because they can not be certain that the person in question really believes.”
Maybe this is a difference in Eastern and Western understanding, but the above is not the case. No one, who later realizes that they didn’t really believe, is required to be re-baptized. The sacrament is valid, even if we don’t fully receive the grace. If at a later time we realize our failure to accept it, it is there for the receiving, without re-doing the ritual. How many bubble-gum chewing, rebellious teens have a proper intention at their confirmation? Is there ever even a question about its validity, say, when they are later ordained? An overemphasis on intention, as with the Catholic doctrine of marriage, causes perpetual agnosticism regarding the validity of sacraments, which IMHO is blasphemous. Certainly an over-emphasis can be made in the other direction, which turns the sacraments into magic, but that is not the issue here.
I wasn’t questioning the *validity* of the baptism but merely making the point that, according to your reasoning, priests who baptize are permitting *sacrilege,* since they can’t tell whether or not the person they baptize believes or not. Of course even the baptism of one who does not believe is valid. And, of course, if the priest does not intend to confect the sacrament, it is not valid.
I don’t know about Soloviev being an occultist; however, I know he did an excellent job of refuting the Orthodox on the authority of the pope in the first part of his Russia and the Universal Church. It’s what kept me from going Orthodox.(Sadly, this book is out of print and hard to find; but, an abridgement has been printed and published by Catholic Answers. It is called The Russian Church and the Papacy, edited by Father Ray Ryland. It is well worth reading.)
The canons of the local western synods have been condemned, at least in principle — at the Council of Trent, which condemned remarriage of the married. The Roman Church has also always taught what Trent decreed.
What is your evidence that the non-Chalcedonians permit the same practice as the Orthodox? But, if they did, it would not be surprising, since it easy for any Church to go easy on divorce after a time (as did the Frankish Church); it seems a nearly universal temptation. And isn’t it important at all to you, who expect us to bow our heads in respect to Orthodox tradition, that Rome has not ever permitted divorce and remarriage?
Further, the question is not whether the Church can bless a non-sacramental marriage, but whether the Church can bless a man or woman who has both a validly married spouse and a non-sacramentally married spouse. For Father Meyendorff to say that the Church allowed non-sacramental marriage is not the same thing as saying the Church allowed remarriage after divorce.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article in question states that one cannot find evidence for the current Eastern practice in antiquity; I assume that the article is correct, since you have not presented any evidence for it either. (Photius is the earliest authority you cite, but he lived about 200 years after the Quinisext Council. Much can change and develop in such a period.) It seems Father Meyendorff doesn’t give any evidence, either, since you would cite it if he did. Further, even if I grant you the authority of the Quinisext Council, it doesn’t sanction divorce and remarriage. In fact, it calls it adultery.
And you are still left with the insoluble problem: namely, that in allowing to communion one who has abandoned his spouse for the sake of another, and does not turn away from his sin, you are in effect saying repentance is not necessary for salvation. For what repentance is there when one does not return to the rightful owner that which belongs to him? As a Catholic, I find the abuse of annulments embarrassing; don’t you find the Orthodox practice at all troubling?
The Fall 2002 issue of Latin Mass magazine has a nice review of Vladamir Soloviev’ book by H.W. Crocker.
Read the review with the winter 2000 issue letters to the editor for a full appreciation of the article.
I recall the Crocker article. Many Orthodox found it utterly offensive. Whatever Solviev’s arguments, the messenger is so distasteful to most Orthodox that it is a waste of Catholic’s time. JPII cites him much more favorably than just that one writing. If you’ve read much about Soloviev’s story, with his recurring, quasi-erotic encounters with the mystical “Sophia” and his occultic studies/practices with Kabbalah, the Egyptians, and the Paris school, you realize that he is far from a good spokesman for Christianity.
” It seems Father Meyendorff doesn’t give any evidence, either, since you would cite it if he did. ”
That’s not the focus of his chapter, so it’s not surprising that it doesn’t contain such info.
Look, I’m no historian and I’m no theologian. I am not in a position to provide you with all of the relevant information, which would be sufficient to fill up a nice size treatise.
As for non-Calcedonians, I’ve seen references in various places, but one such place is the article you cite above.
That the West has had a different canonical practice from the East means to me simply that.
The West says the East changed. The East says it has not. Neither you nor I have really presented much substantial evidence either way. As such, I’m inclined to allow those that wrote the canons to interpret them, considering they maintain the same ethos, sensibilities, theology, etc.
Am I troubled by Orthodox practice? Yes and no. Divorce and the subsequent results are a direct result of a fallen world and sin (even if one party is innocent). Christ has raised marriage to the level of a Sacrament of the New Covenant. Re-marriage is not on the straight and narrow. Once a divorce has occurred, what does the Church do? What kind of pastoral care does she give (and I don’t mean support groups)? How does she prevent the person(s) from “burning”? What level of radical repentence is required of those who are not at the level of saints? And so on…
These are not easy questions, and a purely theoretical answer does not suffice. Christ came to call sinners, not the righteous. The Church must be solicitous of all her members, including those who have fallen from the divine path. As such, the Church deals with the situations that the fallen world presents, with the Holy Spirit guiding her. I’m not really in any position to argue with the result.
“it doesn’t sanction divorce and remarriage. In fact, it calls it adultery.”
As it does marriage after the death of a spouse, along with many, many other Fathers. Aren’t you troubled that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow this? The Orthodox Church is at least honest in calling both adultery, even if she is then left with the pastoral problem of what to do next.
correction, the letters are in the 2003 winter issue of Latin Mass magazine.
The most interesting letter is by the editor of Latin Mass magazine.
Justin,
It looks like our conversation is wrapping up. Only a few more points from me.
The canon of the Quinisext council does not call remarriage after the death of a spouse adultery. It calls “marriage” after the abandonment of a spouse adultery. Some Fathers seemed to hold that remarriage after the death of a spouse is adultery (Tertullian, for example), but I have never seen the claim that it was a universally held opinion. Certainly Rome did not hold to it. Thus, as far as I can see, it was a theological opinion. Actually, as I cited above, Pius XII witnessed to the superiority of widows and widowers remaining unmarried. But it seems to me a stretch to call remarriage after a spouse’s death adultery — especially since St. Paul in I Timothy said young widows should remarry. Was he saying it were better for young widows to commit adultery? Thus, I am not ashamed of the witness of the Church of Rome.
I did not set out to convince you that the East did not from an early date sanction divorce and remarriage. You made the claim, and I have been challenging it. You did not make your case. Really, I can’t prove that East didn’t do anything; I cannot prove a negative.
And, finally, you say that the Eastern practice is a realistic one given human sin. Remarriage after abandonment of a spouse is allowed in order to keep the one who has abandoned him or her from… what? Fornication? By allowing what is admitted to be adultery? You allow the greater sin to defend against the lesser? Or, in order to keep the offender from committing adultery you bless adultery? Or is it loneliness that is the concern, such that it is better to continue in adultery than to be lonely? This makes no sense to me.
Your case is stronger in regards to the one abandoned. Why not let him or her remarry? What if a woman has children she needs to care for? I would answer the first question — that remarriage after divorce is adultery. And one is not allowed to sin even for a good purpose. Secondly, if a woman who is abandoned is left destitute, what does that say for the Church (whether Orthodox or Catholic)? Rather than give in to adultery, the Church should take the way of Christ — to care for the widow and the orphan.
I have been out of town since Friday morning, and will pick up where I left off…
David, we are not here discussing your annulment, of which I know nothing, nor the annulments of some of the other participants in this discussion, of which I know a bit more. Do not take it personally. I have said before in this conversation that I know of “marriages” which were clearly null and that I am grateful the Church recognizes this.
That said, none of them were cases of people married over twenty years, of apparently mature, convinced, practicing Catholics who went on to have a bunch of children, and to teach others about Catholic marriage.
That such a marriage is declared never to exist clearly means we have a problem.
I would further add that when a diocesan tribunal declares a marriage nullified it does not partake of the Church’s charism of infallibility: the persons involved are still responsible to the light of conscience. Whatever other factors are involved there are other sins involved, regardless of the history of the union. Once children are born one has a responsibility for their good; to harm them for whatever reason is wrong.
I see the secondary discussion has developed into a full-blown historical/theological conversation.
I think, as some others have said, that both approaches- Catholic and Orthodox- have their problems and strengths.
On the broader issue, I would suggest to my Roman friends that if they are to take the Holy See’s attitude toward reunion seriously they will realize that if that blessed day ever comes it will not be because the Eastern Church comes to its senses and adopts Roman doctrine and discipline as it stands, but only when both Churches open their hearts and minds to the strengths of the other, and with humility come to see how much they can learn from the other.
It will come from Love, or not at all.
I am pleased to see that with a couple minor exceptions, some no doubt unintentional, that this conversation has demonstrated a respectful tone.
As a sort of footnote, I would say that to characterize Soloviev as an “occultist and heretic” is a gross overstatement. Unless, that is, one is going to condemn his many admirers [like von Balthasar] as well.
On the other hand, anyone who recommends Crocker to anyone, let alone an Orthodox Christian, must not be too familiar with this character’s writing. Didn’t he once say that the Roman Church should celebrate the sack of Constantinople as a feast day? And then claimed that he was joking when people were offended?
That is like saying that the Church should commemorate the Holocaust with a liturgical feast and then claiming it was only meant as a joke. Or saying that you’d like to rape someone’s wife, and then saying you only meant it as a joke when you recover consciousness!
I second Daniel’s opinion about Mr. Crocker. I read his piece on the sack of Constantinople, and it was hideous, to put it mildly. No Christian can but condemn the fourth crusade. It is an event over which we Catholics should blush crimson.
I don’t know if Daniel included me in “my Roman friends.” Back in 1992, when my family and I returned to the wasteland that is California, we began attending a Byzantine Catholic church. When we moved again to the Sierra Nevada, we, nearly every Sunday, made an hour and 40 minute trek across the Mojave Desert to a Byzantine Catholic monastery that is so traditionally Eastern as to confuse any Orthodox who should just wander in. I, at least, who was not raised Catholic (I was born into a Missouri Synod Lutheran family), took to the Byzantine Rite and spiritual discipline. Our first three children, though baptized in the Roman Rite, received chrismation and first communion in the Eastern Church. Our last three received all the mysteries in the Byzantine Rite. I studied things Byzantine, read Meyendorff, some of the Eastern Fathers (especially St. John Chrysostom, whom I love, and St. Ephrem the Syrian, after whom our sixth child is named), St. Seraphim of Sarov, the Philokalia (which I still read) as well as applying myself to become Byzantine in all things, including learning the Jesus Prayer, which I still prefer to the Roman rosary. My spiritual father was a Byzantine monk. I prayed large sections of the Byzantine Divine Office. We even applied for formal transference to the Ruthenian jurisdiction, which was denied. And this over a period of about ten years. I speculated on whether any distinction could be made as to the authority of the western councils over against the first seven councils, and even over whether some allowance could be made for the Orthodox discipline of divorce and remarriage. I suppose one could cite my intellectual formation under St. Thomas Aquinas as making the whole business futile, and perhaps he would be right. I wonder now if any Western man can really become Byzantine without play acting. But perhaps others can. I, at least, am deeply a Western man, for good or ill.
I still love and revere the East and am convinced that much of its religious culture could go far to healing the wounds of the West. But I’ve come to the point where I call myself neither Byzantine nor Roman, but simply Catholic. I can not think of myself as anything other; with Belloc, I even object to the name Roman Catholic. I have retained much of Eastern practice in my prayer life, though now I pray the Roman office (I still am ambivalent over the Latin rosary) and hear Latin Mass (new rite) at a local monastery.
I know all this is nauseatingly personal and really means next to nothing. But I write it to give some background to this my opinion: I agree that both the West and the East have to open their hearts to each other. But there are certain areas which are non-negotiable for the Catholic Church. One of these is divorce and remarriage, for reasons I have stated ad nauseam; another is the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pontiff. As to the latter, certain concessions of a non-essential nature could perhaps be made — greater autonomy for eastern patriarchs than which western bishops enjoy, for instance. But, in the end, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are not equals.
As the Second Vatican Council taught, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church; the Orthodox Churches only have, albeit most, but not all the elements of the Church of Christ. The Roman pontiff enjoys infallibility, which no Eastern bishop or group of bishops enjoy. The process of unity cannot include a wholesale reevaluation of what the Roman Church has taught authoritatively, either through her pontiffs, or through her universal and ordinary magisterium, or through councils approved by the pope. One of these is the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and everything connected with it, which we have discussed.
It might not be ecumenical to say this, but unity will only be achieved by a conversion of the Orthodox churches to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Eastern and Western, which is the Church centered on the Roman pontiff. Whatever conversion the Catholic Church must undergo will be in non-essential areas, areas of culture, custom, or mode of expression. I don’t see how a Catholic can say anything else.
[offensive comments removed]
If you want to know what is wrong with the modern understanding of ecumenicism, just read Christopher Zehnder’s comment:
“It might not be ecumenical to say this, but unity will only be achieved by a conversion of the Orthodox churches to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Eastern and Western, which is the Church centered on the Roman pontiff. Whatever conversion the Catholic Church must undergo will be in non-essential areas, areas of culture, custom, or mode of expression. I don’t see how a Catholic can say anything else.”
In other words, ecumenicism has come to mean selling out the Faith in false charity of being nice as the world desires us to be nice by not making waves. Telling the shismatic Orthodox they will not go to hell for their schismatic ways is not charity, but false charity which sends a man to hell. The same hold for those who say the old covenant is still in affect and that the Jews can come to the Father without first coming to the Son, in spite of Christ’s words to the contrary.
As St. Peter, our first pope said, “you have the words of ever lasting life” and in that One Church do those words exist. Christ did not establish many Churches, he established One Church, and in so far as the schismatic Orthodox chose to be schismatic Orthodox, they are outside of that One Church and will go to hell for that choice. To tell the schismatic Orthodox otherwise than that they are in schism is false charity, which is likewise false mercy, and false love. And is nothing short of deception. Either deception of one’s self or deception of others.
The annulment scandal is likewise based in deception because it takes Christ’s words and twists them until we have unrecognizable conclusions which follow from the twisting. Whith conclusions such as that couple cannot know if they are married. And thus a placing of a doubt, which can lead to greater error. Which is what sandals do, they place a doubt in the mind of the weak which leads them into further error.
But the annulment scandal is small patatoes compared with the much greater error and scandal of saying that men can enter heaven other than through Christ’s visible Church , a Church which the schismatics deny being part of, like so many others likewise do.
I don’t know that there’s much more that is profitable to say about in furtherance of our discussion, so I’ll allow Christopher the last word.
Regarding Solviev, I stand by what I’ve said. I recommend the writings of Fr. Georges Florovsky, St. John of San Francisco, and Fr. Michael Pomazansky as support. Soloviev’s ideas are clearly heretical. One for example: “Christ came to earth not in order to save the human race. Rather, he came so as to raise it to a higher degree in the gradual manifestation of the Divine Principle in the world-the process of the ascent and deification of mankind and the world.” More gnostic than anything. He believed that Sophia was the Eternal Feminine principle, a mediator between God and man, but was not identified with any person of the Holy Trinity (this was taken to its eventual conclusion by Florensky, who said she was a fourth hypostasis of God). These ideas were condemned by the Moscow patriarchate, and by many theologians, bishops, and saints since. He allowed his dabbling in Kabbalah, Gnosticism, and Eastern mystery cults to inform his Christian philosophy (not theology). What von Balthasar’s and JPII’s admiration for him means is not for me to say.
Franklin, your first two paragraphs are out of line. You can talk about this without engaging in vilification.
You have a good point about sandals, though. My wife keeps wanting to buy me a pair of Birkenstocks and I keep saying “anathema.”
“David, we are not here discussing your annulment, of which I know nothing, nor the annulments of some of the other participants in this discussion, of which I know a bit more…”
I know what WE are discussing, Daniel, as well as what we are not. I also know more than one person is discussing it. No, I don’t take it personally, though if I did I’d probably have a right to. In reading the bulk of comments with respect to annulements, the word “annulment” appears more than “invalid marriage” or “marriage preparation.” Even a casual reading would lead one to conclude (and you’re not the only one repeating himself) that “too many annulments” is the problem. What I do NOT read anywhere, is someone saying, specifically, how many is too many. And until you do, it seems to me, you aren’t getting anywhere.
Also getting nowhere, is any discussion that avoids the ROOT of the problem in question. Now when you can do that, you’re on to something.
David,
I don’t take the concern as being “too many annulments” but rather as “too many questionable annulments.” Granted, nobody is putting a specific number on “too many,” but that doesn’t strike me as decisive.
What’s “questionable”? Annulments granted when the couple has already raised children together and the time since they made their vows can be counted in decades. What’s “too many”? Enough to give the widespread impression that marriage vows are not really binding. It’s a fact that that impression is now widely held.
I don’t think anyone has much difficulty in imagining a case where a long-standing marriage might really have been invalid. But it’s just common sense to suspect something amiss when you start seeing a great many of them. It’s like watching a court that always convicts or always acquits. It’s data that doesn’t pass a range test so kind of demands to be looked at.
Maclin,
Anathema to Birkenstocks? I must say I’m shocked. Shocked. I always thought Birks and Caelum et Terra went together. What would you rather? Wingtips?
Now I wonder about *your* orthodoxy.
I think of them as, like, corporate and stuff.
Your real hard-core CetT type would make his own shoes from the skins of his own livestock. Or perhaps carve himself a pair of sabots, to be thrown into the machinery at some opportune moment.
Mr Salazar: Yes, name calling and insults are a great way to attract people to the Catholic Church. I really think you should examine your conscience: you think the Orthodox are hell-bound [more about that later] so you deliberately say hateful things sure to offend them and repel them? What, do you want them to go to hell? You really owe everyone here an apology for this latest instance of hatefulness.
We are not to worship strange gods, and I find your god strange indeed.
Here we have our Orthodox brethren, baptized into Christ, professing the Apostolic Faith, nourished on the Body and Blood of Christ, sins forgiven by priests whose ordination comes from bishops in succession from the Apostles, with a rich religious culture that is heavily mystical, with abundant miracles and charismatic gifts.
Then, when they die, God announces that -gotcha!- because they lacked juridical unity with the bishop of Rome they’re going to hell!
What kind of God do you worship that would pull such a hoax, giving people all the means of salvation but damning them on what is a legal technicality?
Christ founded one Church, and that Church was riven a thousand years ago. The center of that Church as an earthly structure is the office of Peter, the locus of unity. It is God’s will that all Christians exist in union with the Roman Pontiff. It is also God’s will that all be saved, and he is an opportunist when it comes to saving souls.
While unity is God’s will, the sort of Latin arrogance I have seen in recent posts- holding the most rigorous interpretation of Catholic dogma and the most rigid scholastic constructs in which it is expressed- is a barrier to unity. It does not attract, but repels; it is the sort of thing that drove half the [so-called] Ruthenian Catholics into the arms of Orthodoxy in the last century, and drives frustrated Byzantine Catholics there today.
And David- the ROOT of the problem is Church personel who do not want in any way to challenge the faithful or say “no” to their wishes, even if in the long run it erodes respect for Christian marriage.
Daniel,
Is it “Latin arrogance” or particularly scholastic to say that one who is married cannot contract another marriage while his or her spouse still lives? Was the teaching on the Council of Trent on this matter so Western that the Orthodox cannot possibly understand it?
Is it Latin arrogance or particularly scholastic to say that, in order to achieve union with Rome, one must acknowledge that when the pope teaches from the chair of Peter in matters of faith or morals, he is infallible?
Are you really proposing that, to achieve unity with the Orthodox, Rome should allow them their discipline of remarriage, even though it contradicts not only the Council of Trent but the perennial teaching of the Church of Rome? Are you saying that Rome not insist on the doctrine of infallibility, but allow the Orthodox their rejection of the Petrine authority? In sum, are you saying that the Catholic Church must compromise not only on non-essentials but even essential doctrines to achieve unity with the Orthodox?
And one more point. Forgive me.
The Ruthenians in the United States split over a matter of discipline — a married clergy. They did not split over essential points of doctrine. To compare a disciplinary matter with the things we’ve been discussing is to compare apples and oranges.
Yes, and the American bishops insisting on a celibate clergy for Eastern Catholics was an instance of Latin arrogance, and a violation of the agreement of union by which Orthodox believers were reunited with Rome.
I never made any proposal about Orthodox custom regarding marriage other than to suggest that it is more honest and ultimately more respectful of the sacredness of marriage than our status quo re annulments in this country.
[Some of the stricter Orthodox groups require abstention from the Eucharist while the second union exists, which is no different than the Catholic practice, except it is more inclusive of the couple in the life of the Church]. In any case, my concern was with the wronged party, not the one who abandons him or her.
I am not proposing any compromise on essential doctrines, only a less triumphalistic presentation of them, a rearticulation, if you will, that is more sensitive to the traditions of the East.
Can a Western man be a Byzantine without playacting? I don’t know; can a Protestant become a Catholic without playacting? There are those who would question this, you know.
And I too have never owned a pair of Birkenstocks, nor any “scandals” since the 80s, when I was a Franciscan postulant. Give me work boots anyday.
Mr. Nichols,
If my comments are repellant and offensive, those who are offended or repelled by them have either already made their choice long before reading any text I wrote and thus my comments are of no affect, or else those I describe give proof to my description of them by their emotional non-intellectual reaction to my written words.
To call my written words ‘hateful’ is absurd, and risible given the continuous attack on all things Latin. But such is the nature of the beast. Attack the Church, i.e. “Latin arrogance”, and then claim being offended. Was Christ hateful, offensive and repellant when he called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers”? Shall we walk in Christ’s footsteps or the worlds?
And as Christopher Zehnder points out,.the Eastern Orthodox are not only schismatics, they are also heretics on various points of doctrine.
_________________________
Daniel Nichols writes: “Here we have our Orthodox brethren, baptized into Christ, professing the Apostolic Faith, nourished on the Body and Blood of Christ, sins forgiven by priests whose ordination comes from bishops in succession from the Apostles, with a rich religious culture that is heavily mystical, with abundant miracles and charismatic gifts.”
To the contrary,
The Council of Florence:
“For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Is the Council of Florence likewise the worship of strange gods? I wrote nothing which has not been previously written by the Church innumerable times before. In so far as the schismatic Orthodox and not invincibly ignorant, but gnash their teeth in their non serviam, the Council of Florence applies to them. Is the Council of Florence likewise hateful, repellant and offensive?
” I wrote nothing which has not been previously written by the Church innumerable times before.”
“…the Orthodox’s [sic] continual lowering of themselves to the level of adolescent girls with their prideful, whining, backbiting.[sic]
When they turn around and start acting like men I’ll be more interested in what they have to say.”
Kindly show me where the Church has made such offensive comments “innumerable times before.”
You know, the approach you take, proof-texting quotes from medieval Councils, is the same that the Feenyites use to show that unless one is a registered member of a Roman Catholic parish one cannot be saved.
Do you deny that the Orthodox possess valid sacraments?
And an Apostolic episcopate?
That their sins are forgiven in the Mystery of Penance?
That they truly receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Mystery of Chrismation [Confirmation]?
And are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ?
That there are verifiable miracles [like the Holy Fire of Jerusalem] associated with their worship?
That they are true Churches [as the Catholic Church teaches]?
Yet they are still hellbound?
What a strange god you worship, not unlike the hardscrabble Orthodox who call Roman Catholics “graceless heretics”.
I sometimes think that purgatory for such folks will be to be locked up with one another for a good long time, perhaps with a few fundamentalist Protestants thrown in for good measure, and for humility.
You know, Franklin, this response is against my better judgement; you seem to delight in provoking people, and I think responding only encourages you to post your vitriolic nonsense.
And I wonder. What ever happened to you in the twenty years or so since we hung out in Arlington? I don’t remember you being so ornery…or so gratuitously offensive.
Mr. Nichols,
A Feenyite?? I’ll have to tell my Feenyite friend here who used to write for C&T of the accusation. He’ll find it amusing.
I have great sympathy for a number of people I know who attend the St. Pius X society. They have valid sacraments etc. also. They are also in schism. And they too will drift further away from the Church they claim to be part of. And they too act like adolescent girls in their bizarre insistence that the Church repudiate the novus ordo mass before they will entertain coming back. Once again, the wayward child claiming to have the authority of the parent, dictating terms to the parent. The Pius X parish church here, St. Isidore the farmer, has Archbishop Chaput’s name on it’s cornerstone, ( the architecture is poorly done but I’ll let that slide ), but do you think they have any intention of actually being under jurisdiction to the local ordinary?
Each and every schismatic in their myopic temporal vision knows better than the Church, and they will come back when the Church comes around to seeing things their way. In other words, they have no intention of coming back, they intend to hold their ground and attempt to force the Church to mold itself in their own image. And are they really finally any different than the feminists who have the Church in the US in a strangle hold as they to mold the Church into their own ghastly wrath of God image?
Do you know why the pro-life movement is dead? Because it compromised, because the movement listened to those who whispered in their ears that compromise was necessary. And it was not babies lives that were incrementally saved in ever greater numbers by the comprome, but the opposite. The movement was killed incrementally as it compromised again and yet again until there are no more lives left to compromise. They have all been compromised.
Those who ask you to compromise yourself are asking for just that, that you compromise yourself. That is not reaching down and pull others up to us, but lowering ourselves down to them. We would be remiss to treat our children so poorly.
As to being “gratuitously offensive”, I suppose I’ve always preferred the more blunt approach, it certainly is more entertaining. My sister, for instance, never did recover from my telling her that she was a paramour, if the fact that she recently didn’t invite me to her wedding is any indication. Not that I would have gone if invited.
And so I suppose it depends on how one looks at it. We live in a modern culture where everyone is a victim wearing their victimhood on their sleeve. We are no longer ruled by our intellect but acquiesce to our emotions. We are becoming a nation of children, in fact a nation of adolescent girls commonly referred to as sensitive men, or metrosexuals or what have you. Each and every one of them are offended at the drop of a hat if we don’t kowtow to their each and every irrational whim. It’s a culture I don’t care the least bit for. A culture which inculcated the annulment scandal we are beset by because the culture’s childish growups want to go home because the party isn’t fun anymore. The problem is, they already are home, and the bed they are sleeping in, as occasionally it is, just happens to be their own.
The schismatic Orthodox act likewise as if they are the victims, the offended party, when they are in fact doing virtually all of the offending.
The annulment scandal exists because men and women refuse to take responsibility for their actions, or vows in this instance, but instead prefer to be children and victims. Well its time to grow up. The same holds for the schismatic Orthodox who have compromised themselves on adultery, but yet attempt to claim that their lowering of themselves is the high ground. In both instances, (the annulment scandal and the Orthodox acceptance of adultery), responsibility is shirked in favor of the indulgence of the flesh.
I don’t think that Chris Zehnder has been guilty of “Latin arrogance” – the forbidding of married Eastern Catholic priests in the U.S. is certainly an example of Latin arrogance (or at least Irish arrogance and Roman cowardice), and I have condemned this for years. I don’t know to what extent the decrees of Trent, say, could be expressed in different ways so as to seem less Latin or scholastic. That, I suppose, would be a major theological enterprise to investigate. But surely the substance (as Daniel Nichols affirms) must be retained. The orthodox practice on remarriage may be more honest in a sense than granting annulments to more or less anyone who applies, but I guess it’s more honest also, to say, “Sure, I’m about to wage an unjust war, might makes right,” than to cover one’s war with hypocritical justifications. But the latter at least preserves the pretence of morality and we can always appeal to the moral law which even the hypocrite pretends to acknowledge. But admittedly both are evils. But we don’t uphold a law by abolishing it, any more than by winking at violations of it.
As some of you know, the Byzantines forced all Christians in union with them (e.g., Copts) to adopt the Byzantine liturgy – was this an example of Byzantine arrogance? I don’t deny that Latins have been guilty of arrogance in the past, but I think we have to be very careful in our distinctions. I’ve mentioned before the Greeks in southern Italy who were never required to become Latin. To me this seems a striking fact and shows that when push came to shove, Rome did respect other rites and modes of spiritual expression. As Daniel Nichols used to say, Catholics rarely behaved as well as they ought to, but very often better than others did.
There were Eastern prelates at Vatican I and if there were none at Trent (other than the Italo Greeks) I don’t think it was Rome’s fault.
I do not know Mr. Salazar at all, but if he cannot see that his manner of expression and perhaps some of his opinions are doing damage to the cause he says he wants to uphold, then I suggest that his statements simply be ignored. (I say “perhaps some of his opinions” because it’s hard for me to sort out his statements from his overblown rhetoric.)
“And David- the ROOT of the problem is Church personel who do not want in any way to challenge the faithful or say “no” to their wishes, even if in the long run it erodes respect for Christian marriage.”
Very well, Daniel. Now all you have to do is prove that this is what goes on behind closed doors. Until you do, the words “too many annulments” have no business being together in the same sentence, where any decent discussion of the subject is concerned.
Maclin, you wrote:
“I don’t take the concern as being ‘too many annulments’ but rather as ‘too many questionable annulments.’ Granted, nobody is putting a specific number on ‘too many,’ but that doesn’t strike me as decisive.”
No, me neither. And being decisive requires a direct answer to that question. But since we have none, I would suggest that, as much as we might want to hold tribunals responsible for the problem you suggest, I should think that this does not go far enough.
When I speak of the “ROOT” (Daniel, Maclin, et al), I speak of that which occurs at the origin, the beginning, the start, STEP ONE!!! Appearing before a tribunal does not occur at the beginning; it occurs at the end. I would suggest, therefore, that it cannot necessarily be associated with the root.
Long before anyone appears before a tribunal, they appear before the priest who is to officiate their wedding. They appear at a marriage preparation course. They attend “Engaged Encounter” or “Pre-Cana” or whatever it is. If there is indeed a problem in the making, doesn’t it make more sense to look there, and examine the state of things at the beginning stage, rather than wait until the damage is done?
Because if you do, then the issue of what tribunals do, or how much they wish to avoid offense, is a moot point. If those entering marriage are better prepared, if the programs preparing them are more orthodox than they are now, then there would be less likely to be nearly as many tribunals to blame for much of anything.
David,
As I think others have said already, no one would deny that poor marriage preparation, a nominal commitment to the Faith, and general immaturity have caused many weddings in Catholic churches not to result in real marriages. No disagreement there. But most of us are exercised over what seem to be real marriages by committed Catholic couples, which have lasted for years, being declared null. This is what we’re upset about. Poor marriage preparation, etc., is also, of course, a big problem. It just doesn’t happen to be the problem we’re talking about right now. Poor marriage catechesis does not seem to be at the root of some of the breakups and subsequent annulments most of us have seen. After all, some of these couples were in the business of teaching others about Christian marriage. But your concerns about poor preparation are of course valid.
“Poor marriage catechesis does not seem to be at the root of some of the breakups and subsequent annulments most of us have seen. After all, some of these couples were in the business of teaching others about Christian marriage.”
Thank you, Tom. I guess I would have to agree to disagree here, from my own experience, and from the observations of other cases (including perhaps the ones we both know). I should think it possible for people to teach others how they should do things, while ignoring their own advice. I’m sure many of us have seen that in our own lives or the lives of others. As to the case which Daniel described that began this thread, I would be as shocked and dismayed as anyone, that such a marriage as he describes it could possibly be declared null.
That being said, I hope for my own part that I’ve said enough.
Daniel Nichols asked, “can a Protestant become a Catholic without playacting?” Yes and to some extent, no. In its deepest sense, becoming Catholic means embracing the Church and her teachings as true and being incorporated into the Body of Christ through baptism. In that sense, a Protestant can truly become Catholic. But there is a cultural level; there are Protestant and Catholic cultures, even sometimes within the same nation. Some converts are able to imbibe the Catholic spirit and expression; others never do. (When I became a Catholic at age 19, my confessor quipped, “you can take the boy out of the Missouri Synod but you can’t take the Missouri Synod out of the boy.” I suppose that’s still true today; but hopefully, not too much.)
Based on the above, I don’t think a Latin becoming Byzantine is entirely the same thing as a Protestant becoming Catholic. The differences between Eastern and Western Catholics are a matter of religious and spiritual culture, expression, or emphasis, not of substance. Becoming Byzantine for a Latin is rather like becoming Greek for a non-Greek. I suppose an American, for instance, could go live in Greece and adopt much of Greek culture, and even find Greek culture more amenable and beneficial. But will he ever truly become Greek? After all, culture is a integral part of our character.
I don’t mean to say Latins should not enter the Byzantine churches or that for some being Byzantine is not more beneficial — especially in our day. These are merely reflections that came out of my sojourn in the East. Take them for what they’re worth.
It is true that I will never be a Slav; indeed that is why I will not “officially” ask for a transfer of rite until there is one trans-ethnic Byzantine Catholic Church in this country.As things stand, you more or less are joining an ethnic group.
On the other hand, for someone of my temperment, never at home with the developments of the last 800 years in the Roman Catholic Church [scholasticism, baroque, counter reformation, etc, let alone more modern things] and an iconographer to boot, it is a perfect fit.
David- Well I know of one annulment too many, the one that started this meandering conversation.
man with black hat: Step 1: Open Wound. Step 2: Add Salt. Step 3: Stir…
Daniel said:
“It is true that I will never be a Slav; indeed that is why I will not “officially” ask for a transfer of rite until there is one trans-ethnic Byzantine Catholic Church in this country.”
Well there is at least one parish that fits this description, St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Denver. The Pastor is Fr. Chrysostom Frank, a former OCA priest, now a priest of the Archdiocese of Denver. Fr. Frank celebrates both the Roman rite and the Russian Byzantine rite (in English) in this parish. Additionally, the parish hosts a group of religious sisters from Peru affiliated with the Christian Life Movement. The composition of the parish is very eclectic, and I can’t think of a single ethnic Russian in the congregation. Fr. Frank himself is South African.
David- I tried to respond to the thread on your weblog but couldn’t figure out how to get on….
I am not too handy with technology.
But I’m with M.Z. Forrest, my yooper friend:
The idea that we are all so poorly catechized that it is near-impossible to contract a valid marriage is bizarre; the Church holds that pagans can contract a binding natural union, and that Protestants can contract a sacramental marriage. It isn’t that elusive or rarified: any sane person who understands that marriage means fidelity for life and the begetting of children can do it.
My friends surely qualified.
It is sad to see the psychologists trumping the wisdom of the ages, and so many Catholics eager to get on board.
“It isn’t that elusive or rarified: any sane person who understands that marriage means fidelity for life and the begetting of children can do it.”
Well, that’s the real trick, isn’t it?
I meet formerly-married people all the time who don’t understand that much. I’ve known guys who were cheating on their intended ones, right up until the met their bride at the altar. And even as a divorced man who hopes one day to remarry in the Church (and this isn’t about me, so we won’t be going there), it sickens me to think that people are that jaded, and that a society is willing to lend them affirmation. And I suspect I’m acquainted with far more divorced people than you’ll ever be. I don’t say that as a boast; simply the likelihood given our respective circumstances.
No kidding, Dan. I’ve actually spoken to men and women who have left their marriages, for no better reason than that they were unhappy. Now, did this render those unions invalid? I don’t see how it could. But whether they understood what they were doing then, they sure don’t now.
And I think that people are being unduly influenced in the present day, to believe that nothing is forever, and that relationships, even marriages, are disposable. There’s no great psychology involved here, just the results of one evening watching prime-time television (which is usually one evening too many, so I don’t recommend it).
As to whether “my friends surely qualified,” I wouldn’t dare claim your gift for insight in this case; I simply don’t know. But I do know this; the number of children they had is not an issue. For a tribunal, it never is. What matters is the state of formation of intentions, when the bond was contracted. And that is not pop psychology; that is the teaching of the Church regarding the validity of a sacrament.
And to maintain that, is no more irresponsible than to attribute “a fit of menopausal madness” to any woman for any reason.
(Postscript: to comment on my weblog, simply click on where it says “X comments” at the bottom of the post. You’ll always be welcome there.)
While it is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and while this is not a pissing contest, I would be surprised if you are acquainted with “far more” divorced people than I am. I don’t know what circumstance of my life you think would shield me from knowing a lot of divorced people; I assure you they are all around me.
The comment about “menopausal madness” was actually an attempt at charity, a way of trying to make sense of a dear friend behaving in unfathomable ways.
And you seem disproportionately sympathetic to her; I of course am concerned about her but most of my sympathy goes to her husband and children, who are the ones suffering most from her behavior.
Daniel: It would appear that our differences have indeed gone beyond the issue itself, which is where I have tried to limit my comments. In avoiding the particulars, I would hope to exercise my own form of charity. I have obviously failed, otherwise you would know that my sympathy toward both the husband and wife has its limits, and most of my sympathy goes toward the children as well.
Violating Inviolability
Last month, Daniel Nichols over at Caelum & Terra blogged an entry entitled An Open Wound, in which he shared the news of couple that he and his family knew and with whom had once been close having received an annulment.