Divorce and remarriage in the West

[prodromos]

For those who are unaware, there is a blog called "shameless orthodoxy" which I suppose was created in response to another blog called "shameless popery", in which the author delves primarily into the Latin traditions, readily confessing a lack of sufficient knowledge of Greek to read primary texts in the Greek traditions.

In September he posted an article called "Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History"

Since this is one area where Catholics regularly accuse Orthodox of having deviated from the faith handed down, it is good to see that the Latin Church previously held to a position not much different from that held by the Orthodox Church today.

Many of his sources are drawn from
Jo-Ann McNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple, “Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom,” in Women in Medieval Society, edited by Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), 95-124

 

[rusmeister]

I take it then that it meant slight laxity in terms of remarriage in that historical context?

I'm interested in the topic, but pretty opinionated. I'd say the Orthodox Church is more right than the Catholic Church historically speaking, but right now we have a huge amount of secular thinking in our pastoral care, as well as in what we practically teach about marriage, as opposed to what is formally professed by the Church fathers and in Scripture that has been pushing us towards the opposite evil of the Roman legalistic one, that of really thinking of marriage as a thing to be broken when it becomes really hard. We don't go nearly far enough in communicating that marriage is, when all exceptions have been dealt with, a bond for life, not to be broken at all. The Catholics are right about that, even though they go wrong in their legalism, which does produce the nonsense of annulments, and which looks like the basis of the attitude the author of that article deals with ( talking about "indissolubility" is a big hint of that).

It is the right attitude towards and understanding of marriage as a self-sacrificial life that makes real and lasting happiness in marriage possible, and it is the attitude of holding divorce as an escape hatch "when the going gets rough" that destroys that possibility.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I forget which group, but there was a certain early schismatic group who refused divorce and remarriage, and that hard line stance was one that got them kicked out of the Church.

 

[rusmeister]

Thoughts I think worth repeating:
My thoughts, such as they are...
There is no doubt in my mind that in the ancient Church they were very hard on divorce; there was no mentality that thought of marriages as "dying"; that kind of thinking is the product of the modern era.
A number of things ought to be said, each before the other.
One, that many of us are affected by divorce. This results both in the need for an unprecedented sensitivity in handling the issue, as well as an excessive desire on the part of many to justify divorce. It must be conceded that the past is the past, and we have done what we have done. That which cannot be amended can only be repented of. But when we justify, we don't repent. We are seeking to make what we did in the past "OK". But in returning to the true ideal of marriage, it must be made clear that no one is to be condemned for what they did in ignorance, but that once they are enlightened they must be expected to repent of past sin in ignorance, as well as a solid determination never to permit it again. That means, for the remarried divorcee, no more divorce. Ever. Or only to enter lifelong celibacy. From here on out, the marriage you are in now is your only one. That is the attitude that must be held, and it is the one we have abandoned in embracing divorce as "an escape hatch", a valid option when marriage becomes difficult and painful, and in speaking of "dying marriages", a concept not found to my knowledge in the writings of the Church fathers..

What the Catholics are right about is that we need a much more serious view of marriage, and while I do think the Orthodox Church more right in allowing for the extreme exception, something Catholic legalism makes impossible, I do think that modern Orthodox pastoral care is indeed, on the large scale, going off the rails in delivering the vitally serious view of the ancient Church on marriage.

No one is forgetting the words of the Lord on divorce. We all know He allowed for an exception, and He did so because of the hardness of our ________. But in our time EVERYBODY imagines their situation as exceptional, and it's just not true, least of all for the Orthodox Christian, who has some conception of the need for repentance in his or her own life.

I recently completed the translation of GK Chesterton's "The Superstition of Divorce", which does not in the least deal with Catholic theology, but only with the common unoderstandings that even unbelievers can acknowledge. In extreme brief, I will say that the great truth I have learned from it is that people do not know what they are doing when they get divorced, because they don't know what they are doing when they get married. It's all because we all have inherited a skewed view of marriage, that is getting more skewed by the year.

Christ will not divorce His bride, the Church. There will be no annulment, either. THAT is our ideal, which we need to return to. It may mean pain, hardship, and a cross. But that is the only way we can have a thing that we actually treat as a sacrament day to day, after the wedding bells have fallen silent.

 

[LizaMarie]

In his book "Mere Christianity" I love C.S. Lewis' short chapter on Christian marriage. I really wish all Christians today would read it and abide by it. I consider my marriage to be forever until death do us part. Yes there are ups and downs, but I stood up in front of God and man in a Lutheran Church and gave a forever vow and intend to keep it. (Actually we have a good marriage.) This is my first and only marriage,( although my husband was married before.)
I do believe divorce is taken far too lightly today by Christians, never mind the general public. Another thing we can blame the 60's sexual revolution on.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I forget which group, but there was a certain early schismatic group who refused divorce and remarriage, and that hard line stance was one that got them kicked out of the Church.

The Shepherd of Hermas forbids remarriage after divorce which is probably one of the reasons it didn't make the canon.

 

[rusmeister]

No one could have put Christ on His Cross. That is, we can't, in the end, force other people to ascend onto theirs, not even the lighter cross of self-sacrifice in marriage. I think there's a reason we have economia in the
Orthodox Church. But we should a) clearly understand what we are called to, both as Christians in becoming saints, and as married Christians in living out the ideal of marriage, and b) desire to achieve that ideal as best we can - if we have fallen, through fornication, divorce, adultery, etc, we should desire from now on to live according to that ideal, just as we should desire, on walking out of confession, to go and sin no more.

And that ideal is abstinence before marriage, chastity and continence within it, to remain in the same marriage for the rest of your life, to always strive to love one's spouse, especially when it is hard, etc.
And to apply that ideal even after our sins. If we are in a second, or third marriage, to proceed henceforth to never do divorce again, or if we must, only to take up a monastic celibate life.

But in our time, we don't hold that. Our priests don't teach that. It is not spoken in homilies. We assume everyone knows it, when in fact what they actually know is what the world teaches - when it "doesn't work out" (an "it" that takes responsibility off of us), to leave your spouse and find someone with whom "it does".

This ideal cannot be urged on anyone who is not absolutely determined to tale up their own cross and follow Christ. But it ought to be said to those striving or claiming to be "the faithful".

 

[ArmyMatt]

I remember when I got engaged, my priest said something that I think was sound advice. he said that marriage is a sacrament between two people for their salvation, not a contact because two people like each other. if we had more of that mentality, I don't think divorce would be as much an issue. although, I heard some stats that for the Orthodox in America, divorce is much lower than the national average.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I remember when I got engaged, my priest said something that I think was sound advice. he said that marriage is a sacrament between two people for their salvation, not a contact because two people like each other. if we had more of that mentality, I don't think divorce would be as much an issue. although, I heard some stats that for the Orthodox in America, divorce is much lower than the national average.

That really beautiful, too much here in the West sees Marriage as a legal contract, and not as a sacrament. Look at Common law, two people shacking up long enough by "law" is married, yet I observe that in those situations if it is that easy to be "married" it is even easier to divorce.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That really beautiful, too much here in the West it seems as a legal contract, and not a sacrament. Look at Common law, two people shacking up long enough by "law" is married, yet I observe that in those situations if it is that easy to be "married" it is even easier to divorce.

it's because folks often don't know what marriage is about, and why God gave it to man

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

it's because folks often don't know what marriage is about, and why God gave it to man

Very true, not to get too off topic I been hearing that if the changes in the Catholic Church go through under Pope Francis, concerning Communing divorced folks, we might be getting some new Converts.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't know the details of the Catholic requirements so I'm not actually commenting on that, but it would be a sad thing IMO if someone who was divorced could never receive the Eucharist again.

It seems after repentance, confession, some time perhaps - whatever the priest/bishop determines is appropriate for the salvation of the person involved, I am glad it is possible to restore communion in Orthodoxy.

If one was denied communion for the rest of one's life, I fear it would be too easy to drift from the Church entirely.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Shepherd of Hermas forbids remarriage after divorce which is probably one of the reasons it didn't make the canon.

Actually the book of Hermas is listed by Athanasius 39th canonical epistle (ratified for its list of the scriptures) as sanctioned by the church for the catecumens and laity to be read on their own time along with Macabees and a few other secondary scriptural texts.
The Shepherd of Herma's also states remarriage after divorce is forbiden because it puts an end to any possible repentance and reconciliation as one reason for the strictness of no remarriage.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I don't know the details of the Catholic requirements so I'm not actually commenting on that, but it would be a sad thing IMO if someone who was divorced could never receive the Eucharist again.

It seems after repentance, confession, some time perhaps - whatever the priest/bishop determines is appropriate for the salvation of the person involved, I am glad it is possible to restore communion in Orthodoxy.

If one was denied communion for the rest of one's life, I fear it would be too easy to drift from the Church entirely.

Yes being denied Holy Communion for the rest of one life is quite a extreme response, I do like our Church stance of a period of excommunication before being fully restored in good standing,and how after each marriage it less meaningful in the eyes of the Church. However one wonders if the whole three strikes, and your out rule is very healthy, I was surprised to learn from a confidential source that there quite a few divorced folks in my parish to my shock, and surprise.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes being denied Holy Communion for the rest of one life is quite a extreme response, I do like our Church stance of a period of excommunication before being fully restored in good standing,and how after each marriage it less meaningful in the eyes of the Church. However one wonders if the whole three strikes, and your out rule is very healthy, I was surprised to learn from a confidential source that there quite a few divorced folks in my parish to my uterus shock, and surprise.

Well ....

I'm not really interested in judging the Church. But to be honest, early on I reflected on many policies and teachings, and I believe that I see great wisdom in them.

Ideally there would be NO divorce. And ideally after that, there would be no remarriage after divorce.

But what is worse? A person who cannot contain, who is divorced and can't reconcile ... does he go to prostitues or have series of fontications and just confess it? Does he drive himself crazy with the fighting of urges so that he becomes completely distracted from the faith? Does he simply give up on being saved and go back into the worldliness of unbelievers? These are not what MUST happen, of course. Hopefully a person could reconcile, or be chaste, develop discipline and grow closer to God. But ... if they don't? Who am I to say they should be driven from the Church?

I think there is wisdom in encouraging repentance and confession, and above all seeking reconciliation to God, which is the Church's highest priority in all situations.

Again, not my place to judge persons or the Church. I think it likely that things are not taken as seriously as they should be in some cases, perhaps partly because such things are known to be the case. But then again, in God's eyes, perhaps that is more opportunity to repent. What my heart does tell me is that it would be a tragedy to exclude some from the Church forever on legalistic grounds. There is one unforgivable sin, and it isn't divorce or remarriage.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Well ....

I'm not really interested in judging the Church. But to be honest, early on I reflected on many policies and teachings, and I believe that I see great wisdom in them.

Ideally there would be NO divorce. And ideally after that, there would be no remarriage after divorce.

But what is worse? A person who cannot contain, who is divorced and can't reconcile ... does he go to prostitues or have series of fontications and just confess it? Does he drive himself crazy with the fighting of urges so that he becomes completely distracted from the faith? Does he simply give up on being saved and go back into the worldliness of unbelievers? These are not what MUST happen, of course. Hopefully a person could reconcile, or be chaste, develop discipline and grow closer to God. But ... if they don't? Who am I to say they should be driven from the Church?

I think there is wisdom in encouraging repentance and confession, and above all seeking reconciliation to God, which is the Church's highest priority in all situations.

Again, not my place to judge persons or the Church. I think it likely that things are not taken as seriously as they should be in some cases, perhaps partly because such things are known to be the case. But then again, in God's eyes, perhaps that is more opportunity to repent. What my heart does tell me is that it would be a tragedy to exclude some from the Church forever on legalistic grounds. There is one unforgivable sin, and it isn't divorce or remarriage.

You hit the nail on the head that baring someone from Communion forever is horrible. That seem quite a bad response, as it prevents someone from true repentance, and reconciliation with God. Then again we all need repentance and reconciliation with God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I can't help but remember what happened when I was having marital difficulties though.

The church (non-denom, slightly Messianic/AoG leanings) immediately set me aside and said I couldn't participate in any of the ongoing ministries, activities, etc. One pastor didn't want to hear about difficulties (he was afraid I'd mention sex), another told me sometimes God willed divorce. Both of them were divorced and remarried. My problem was an abusive and ungodly spouse causing spiritual difficulties, and simple foolishness of not knowing how to handle that.

I never was helped by them, ended up divorced, spiritually devastated for a couple of years, with much misunderstanding of God's will and what I could/should have done. And I left that church. Sometimes I so desperately wish that "I knew then what I know now" but I can't really predict the overall effects and I have to trust that God worked things out very well, in spite of me.

But I will also never forget the huge burden that was lifted off my heart when I realized what I said above - that divorce isn't the unforgivable sin.

And I will also say that the Orthodox Church, while not actually addressing the issue, helped more than I could realize. As often happens, I ended up in another marriage with a very similar dynamic, though they seemed like opposite men to me. I was right back in the same dilemma before I came into the Church, and for about the first year.

But the Church has changed me, and that changed my marriage, and solved a good 95% or better of the problems from my point of view. My husband has changed very little (but some), but the marriage is very different. And the situation was in some ways more difficult than the first marriage.

I think this is the wisdom of the "three strikes rule" too. Seeing how commonly the same problems come up, if a person does not use the tools of the Church, or learn, then the risk is maybe too high this could be repeated too many times. Divorce is devastating. Failing twice would have been terrible, but I almost did. Failing a third time, it would have been wisest to give up trying to be a wife, I think. Too many souls are damaged along the way.

Lord have mercy.

 

[buzuxi02]

I forget which group, but there was a certain early schismatic group who refused divorce and remarriage, and that hard line stance was one that got them kicked out of the Church.

You are probably talking about the Catharoi (puritans aka Novationists). According to canon 8 of Nicea the Cathari can be readmitted into the church if they give a written profession that they will follow the dogmas of the Church and communicate with those who have been twice married and to accept back those lapsed coming back from persecution and are now under penance. Their clergy could also be received in their ranks.

The Cathari were not actually wrong, they were just too rigid and seperated themselves becoming schismatic. They followedthe biblical command for what they believed in but most bishops deemed it to strict following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6.4-6)

Shepherd of Hermas on remarriage:

...And I said to him, What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? And he said to me, Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way...

The Church allowance for remarriage today is seen in the above quote from Hermas. The Church judged that some marriages were dead and any hope for repentance and reconciliation was zero. But the Cathari were also right in regards to the letter of the law which bars remarriage, and gives no second chances for egeregious sins

 

[ArmyMatt]

Very true, not to get too off topic I been hearing that if the changes in the Catholic Church go through under Pope Francis, concerning Communing divorced folks, we might be getting some new Converts.

I certainly hope so

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are probably talking about the Catharoi (puritans aka Novationists). According to canon 8 of Nicea the Cathari can be readmitted into the church if they give a written profession that they will follow the dogmas of the Church and communicate with those who have been twice married and to accept back those lapsed coming back from persecution and are now under penance. Their clergy could also be received in their ranks.

The Cathari were not actually wrong, they were just too rigid and seperated themselves becoming schismatic. They followedthe biblical command for what they believed in but most bishops deemed it to strict following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6.4-6)

Shepherd of Hermas on remarriage:

...And I said to him, What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? And he said to me, Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way...

The Church allowance for remarriage today is seen in the above quote from Hermas. The Church judged that some marriages were dead and any hope for repentance and reconciliation was zero. But the Cathari were also right in regards to the letter of the law which bars remarriage, and gives no second chances for egeregious sins

oh I never meant that they were wrong per say, only as you pointed out that they were too rigid, and therefore left the Church. the letter of the law must always be pastorally applied