Posted on 02/02/2004 11:51:36 AM PST by Maximilian
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking why the pope is exhorting tribunals to do a better job?
I didn't say that it was. I was giving you the entire selection for context.
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
No, not at all. Well, I don't think it is disputed that non-consumated marriages can be dissolved. The issue is over consummated marriages. It seems to me that the Pope is addressing the issue of whether a woman can remarry if the husband has turned to the religious life. he is saying no, but admitting others think otherwise, including some of his predecessors.
Once again without the whole writing, the context is not clear. Was the slave woman forced to marry? If so, then the marriage wasn't valid to begin with.
You are reading late-medieval canonical concepts (like canonical validity) into Roman-era documents written at a time where Marriages did not even take place in the Church. Roman Law prohibited the marriage of freemen and slaves. That is why this issue is arising in the letter.
If anything,this only points out it was sinful, but to a lesser extent. The fact that communion was to be denied is proof that the Church REJECTED the second marriage. Allowing communion upon illness may be an act of mercy since death could be approaching and there is a chance for repentace.
Actually, I don't get that at all from the passage. Rather what I get is a recognition of the woman being wronged, and pastoral mercy being show if she were to get ill and death be around the corner -- she had a chance to repent. Obviously it was more than frowned upon. (Remember in those days, common illness could kill a person, so any illnes was serious).
You are reading context into it which does not exist. The Church at that time frowned upon all subsequent marriages, whether from death, divorce, or other means. Read Tertullian's "To His Wife" on this if you need some context.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0404.htm
Those which were intrinsically evil (remarriage of guilty adulterers and deserters, etc.) were denied communion even at death without repentance and seperation. This case (remarriage of the innocent party) was not treated in the same way. Something that is intrinsically evil cannot be accepted "in extremis" because there is no gray between right and wrong. The only logical conclusion was that the Church viewed this situation as seriously misguided, but not intrinsically evil.
In any case, there is no mention of a requirement of repentance, because the Canon clearly implies the conintuation of the new couple living together as man and wife. If they had seperated, they could have simply done the much shorter penance due for adultery.
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
And then we are stuck with "Pope vs. Pope".
There is a recognition in the West, of the injured party. However, unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce, that recognition does not allow remarriage. Why? Because a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.
But that isn't the concept held in the East. They don't view it as a valid marriage being dissolved, since sacramental marriage is permanent, but an indulgence being shown towards the innocent in favor of a second natural marriage.
Maybe it would be easier for you to think about it this way. The Patriarchs and Kings of old were not acting against the natural law in taking more than one wife. How is it really any different for a man with an adulterous spouse to follow the same path by marrying another woman? There is no natural law being violated, and the Eastern Church (and the Catholic Church in accepting the actions of the Eastern Church) does not consider the marriage being contracted as being a sacramental marriage, but a legitimate natural marriage.
Also, one must remember something about the Saints: The Church doesn't accept EVERYTHING they said or claimed. It's not wrong to recognize that a party has been injured. What is wrong is to give them permission to live a sinful life via a second marriage.
If this were an instance of one or two isolated Saints, we might agree that this principal applies here. But we are talking about an "error" allegedly held for millenia by most in the East, by doctors of the Church, by various western local Councils and Popes, and by many of the Fathers. The weight of evidence on the one side, and the lack of condemnation by the west towards the east over this practice says volumes.
First concerning the Saints, fathers, doctors:
The weight of evidence on the one side, and the lack of condemnation by the west towards the east over this practice says volumes.
The East might not have been directly condemned, but the practice itself is condemed.
Hermas
"What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery" (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).
"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’
According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts" (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).
"That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’
And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband" (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).
"Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her" (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).
"A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless" (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another" (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’" (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).
"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another" (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).
"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives" (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).
"[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead" (Letters 2:13:15 [A.D. 408]).
"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others.
This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives.
Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication.
We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers.
We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another.
We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery" (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).
"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication" (ibid., 2:4:4).
"Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).
"In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously" (ibid., 1:17:19).
The key here is your own words: "Seems" I think we need more than "seems" in the debate. The pope's wording is too vague. It could indeed be what you think it means, but then again, it could not.
>>You are reading late-medieval canonical concepts (like canonical validity) into Roman-era documents written at a
This isn't true. The divorce exception Jesus spoke of in the Scriptures, allowed divorce for unlawful (invalid) incestious marriages (one of the meanings of Pornea). While the word/concept of "valid" may have been later, they are one in the same (invalid=unlawful).
>>You are reading context into it which does not exist.
That's not true. Herman, Martyr, Clement, Origen all condemn a second marriage well before the council of Elvira and it's canons.
The implicit context is that the second marriage for an 'injured spouse' is sinful, though with a lesser degree of guilt.
>>The Church at that time frowned upon all subsequent marriages, whether from death, divorce, or other means.
Condemnation is much more than frowning. Even for an injured spouse who remarries, frowning is too nice of a description. (Calling someone an adulterer is not a small charge, and not just a case of frowning.)
>>Read Tertullian's "To His Wife" on this if you need some context.
I will when I have a little more time, but I suspect he writes about a lesser guilt instead of approval of a second marriage.
>> Something that is intrinsically evil cannot be accepted "in extremis" because there is no gray between right and wrong. The only logical conclusion was that the Church viewed this situation as seriously misguided, but not intrinsically evil.
To say that the Church viewed it is as misguided is not credible and is an attempt to "dumb down" the the condemnation from the Church of a second marriage.
The Church a second marriage as adultery, but with a lesser amount of guilt involved. Regardless of the extent of the guilt, it was still sinful.
However, adultery is always evil and as you say, there is no gray between right and wrong. The only logical conclusion is that the Church viewed it as adultery (sinful) but also viewed the sin as less malicious.
In any case, there is no mention of a requirement of repentance,
Sin always requires repentance -- it's an implicit concept.
>> because the Canon clearly implies the conintuation of the new couple living together as man and wife.
No. Take a closer look:
A baptized woman who leaves an adulterous husband who has been baptized, for another man, may not marry him. If she does, she may not receive communion until her former husband dies, unless she is seriously ill.
First of all, there is the prohibition: "may not marry him". Why? It's obvious: it's adultery.
If she does, she may not receive communion until her former husband dies, unless she is seriously ill.
The word former doesn't imply that the first marriage is over, but rather distinguishes between the men.
And since lesser guilt is involved in the SIN, she is offered communion if she is *seriously* ill -- due to the threat of death. (Often times in the early Church sacraments were not given till serious illness/pending death. Most people had time to partake in them since there was some amount of time before death.)
The divorce exception Jesus spoke of in the Scriptures, allowed divorce for unlawful (invalid) incestious marriages (one of the meanings of Pornea).
What is your basis for suggesting that Jesus was speaking only of this particular meaning of Pornea ?
Specifically, ... on what basis do you exclude adultery as one of the meanings of pornea in Jesus' statement ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.