Replies

>>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.

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.)