Posted on 04/21/2002 12:54:01 AM PDT by Spar
I'll let you know after they let me climb Mt. Athos. Is that fair or not?
See what I mean? No women of any stripe are allowed on that Athos mountain commune.
Under this Uniate system, you have married priests of one side of the Catholic faith and then you have priests that are required to be celibate in another side of the same Catholic faith.
Again, I am not saying this as a dig to Catholics, I just can't get anyone to explain why this double standard/restriction exists for divorce and married clergy in the Catholic tradition(s).
Thanks.
Allowing divorce and remarriage isn't right because that involves sin. One rule was laid down in the beginning concerning that and it shouldn't be circumvented by any discipline.
You are talking to the wrong person about priests being/not being allowed to marry because it is silly. It was a matter of choice in the bible. There are many things, traditions, in the church, both east and west, that are nonessential to the faith and cause divisions. This issue would seem to be one.
This will really get me flamed but I think the tradition of monks and nuns is something that grew out of innovation and cultural adaptation. There is no precedent for it in scripture. It throws people into abnormal living situations, and to overcome the isolation and abnormality of it, harsh rules were made which has nothing to do with holiness or lack of it. One could argue that that life is freely chosen, which is true for some, but those same individuals could become just a holy living in the world.
Why? Would women defile the mountain or the monks or both? It is sexist and reminds me of some old desert hermits in the west who wouldn't let women near them because they had a warped view of devils, temptations, and women.
Maybe it isn't that way in the Eastern church, but rites in the Western church have undergone many changes.
Consider a rite to be the equivalent of the constitution of the USA in which rules on celibate priests, etc are ingrained.
Now consider orders to be the army or the FBI or the police dept of fire dept.
These organizations have diff ways of doing things but they all must follow the constitition same as orders in respect to the Latin rite.
Thank goodness!
You are mixing two things, divorce and marriage, and you haven't provided any justification I can see for doing so.
First, re marriage: Why do you consider any of this a double standard?
Just becuase they are different? The two different Rites have different traditions, and this is one of them. A married priest is not contrary to the faith, it is not a doctrinal matter, so it is simply a prudential decision. The Church has decided that in one Rite, used predominately in the East, that allowing marriage is the prudent thing to do. To my knowledge this is largely because this is what the people are used to, and they have found it works fine for them. No reason to mess with it. In the West, the Church has decided it is better for priests to remain celibate (at one time it was continent, now its celibate, again, merely a prudential change). There are positives and negatives of each practice. There are many such differences between the Rites. For example, they use a different liturgy then we do. They cannot use the Roman Rite (Western) and we cannot use the Eastern Rites. Is that also a double standard? No, each Rite has its liturgical Rites, just as each Rite has its norms for clergy. They are just different.
Re divorce. I was not aware that divorce was allowed for any Catholic, much less a priest. I have followed each of the links you have provided, and not a single one has mentioned divorce as allowed in any Catholic Church, Eastern or Western. I suspect you misunderstand something, and it would help if you would clarify exactly what you are asking regarding divorce. You keep simply lumping it in with marriage, and that is both confusing and wrong.
To try to help you along, annulment is another matter. Annulment is a declaration that the marriage never existed, not that it existed and is now gone.
patent
De Fide does understand it. The statement means that you can't remarry after a divorce. You can only remarry after an annulment.
I am not so tycho to the answer you give. I know it is the answer given to this problem.
I find the duality strange and insulting to Catholics of the Latin rite that would want married clergy. If the Uniate's are Catholics then their Latin side should also do as the Uniates do.
And by the way, divorce following closely the Orthodox tradition is allowed amongst the Uniates.
Uniates do not need to appeal to the Pope for nullification either. The Eastern Catholic Churches require a decree of nullity from the tribunal with jurisdiction before a divorced person may remarry
I was being glib before, but teh degree of nullity is the same as in the Eastern Church. Adultery is all that is needed to null a marriage in the Orthodox rite (among others).
Do a little research on the Melechite Latin Church and get back to me.If you have a contention, make it. Otherwise, you do the research and ask your question. Or do you want others to do your research, ask your questions for you, and provide the answers? It doesn’t usually work that way.
By the way, do you understand what a decree of nullity is? It’s an annulment. Do you understand this or does it need an explanation?
So in other words the Irish candidate for preisthood wants to get married and father children is screwed?No, he is not screwed, to be more precise. Is there a reason for being crude?
I find the duality strange and insulting to Catholics of the Latin rite that would want married clergy. If the Uniate's are Catholics then their Latin side should also do as the Uniates do.Why? Because you say so? Why?
You can find it insulting all you like. Most Catholics don't. The ones who do quite often find the teachings on contraception, fornication, adultery, and/or homosexuality insulting as well, though those are common in both Rites. In short, for these people its not that its allowed in one Rite and not allowed in the other that is insulting, is that there are rules at all.
And by the way, divorce following closely the Orthodox tradition is allowed amongst the Uniates.It isn’t divorce, and provide your source please.
Uniates do not need to appeal to the Pope for nullification either. The Eastern Catholic Churches require a decree of nullity from the tribunal with jurisdiction before a divorced person may remarryUmmmm, in the West you get a decree of nullity (annulment) from the tribunal with jurisdiction as well. Not much of a difference to that extent. If there is something else you contend is different please identify it specifically.
patent +AMDG
Answer: There are several things which need to be understood as background. Orthodoxy does not engage in a legalistic interpretation of canons. The ultimate goal is always the salvation of souls. This is the rationale behind economia. Also, we need to be realistic that some marriages do fail. From a pastoral point of view, pastors need to deal with these situations when they occur. Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism do deal with the situation of failed marriages, but they do so in very different ways.
Roman Catholicism will analyse the situation and look for reasons why the marriage was never 'valid'. Since in Roman Catholic theology, the sacrament is 'conferred' by the couple on one another, if either lacked 'proper intention' then it can be ruled that no 'valid' sacrament was given. Curiously, the Eastern Rites of Roman Catholicism hold to a different theology of marriage, agreeing with Orthodox Christianity that the priest is the minister of the sacrament. (That is why Eastern Rite Roman Catholics cannot be married by a deacon or 'parish administrator' as can those of the Latin Rite.) However, this results in annulments which in effect declare the Eastern Rite priest thought he was ministering a sacrament when in fact it was 'invalid'.
Once a Roman Catholic marriage is determined to have never actually existed (an annulment), both parties are free to (re-)marry — immediately. Theoretically, a Roman Catholic can go through the Roman Catholic marriage rite an infinite number of times, as long as an annulment is procured after each one.
Orthodoxy recognises that people sin. Divorce is a sin. It faces it head-on, rather than pretending it doesn't exist. (I find it strange that if a marriage 'never existed' that children of the 'non-marriage' are not deemed illegitimate and that there is no sin for the sexual relations which existed during the 'non-marriage'.) Ecclesiastical divorce can be procured, but it is quite rare — far less common than Roman Catholic annulments. It is my understanding that only one party of a failed marriage may receive an ecclesiastical divorce, and only when it is clear that person is the innocent party and is completely open to reconciliation. If a couple mutually agrees to a divorce and are unwilling to reconcile, neither will have a chance of obtaining an ecclesiastical divorce. There are two explicit Scriptural grounds for divorce — adultery, and abandonment. There are also related grounds — for example, severe spousal abuse is also a ground — because it is abandonment in a particularly cruel form.... i.e. the spouse does not have the courtesy to run off, but rather beats his wife until she does.
Ecclesiastical divorces are accompanied by a penance. This is determined based upon specific circumstances — on a case-by-case basis. I have heard of cases where the sinner was granted an ecclesiastical divorce but been barred from receiving the Mysteries (Sacraments) for two years and barred from marrying for seven years. Of course, the person would be expected to continue attending services during this time. In most cases, penances are not so severe. It is my impression that being barred from the Mysteries for three to six months and barred from remarrying for a year is more common. If, during the period during which a person was barred from remarrying, the ex-spouse was willing to reconcile, it would be expected that reconciliation would occur. Reception of an ecclesiastical divorce is dependent upon a clear manifestation of repentance for the sin committed.
When an Orthodox Christian who has previously married is allowed to marry again, the marriage service is radically different than the service for first marriages. There are no crowns, no songs of joy, no being led around the altar. Instead, it is a distinctly penitential service. The Epistle is 1 Cor 7:8ff ('better to marry than to burn'). The service makes very clear that it is a condescension to man's weakness, to sin.
The penitential service is also used when widows & widowers marry. The above cited epistle reading makes the reason for this clear. Orthodox Christianity upholds the ideal of there being only one marriage, but allows the possibility of three attempts to achieve it. A fourth attempt — under any circumstances (including widowhood) is unthinkable. The limit of three is a custom (but so long-standing that it seems to almost be Holy Tradition). Orthodox Christians may not dissolve a true, real, and spiritually authentic marriage. The question remains: who decides the state of the marriage? The answer: the bishop. That is part of his heavy responsibility as the chief pastor and one for which he will have to answer at Judgement.
Interestingly, in an Orthodox country such as Greece, the divorce rate is relatively low (compared with the West — in the U.S. and in Europe there is one divorce for every two marriages). Between 1991 and 1995, there were ten marriages for each divorce. Unfortunately, increasing Western influences have increased the number of divorces. The most recent numbers show only five marriages for each divorce.
Click the link to read more....
Spar...I think Orthodox priests must be married before ordination, otherwise they cannot be married.
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.