Belated Pentecostal and Day of the Holy Spirit greetings to all readers on the Julian calendar. Here is the second installment as promised. Your comments are much coveted.
*****
Archbishop Elias Zoghby, “The Indissolubility of Marriage” (continued)
My statements above are of a strictly pastoral nature. My aim is to help the Western Catholic Church discover a solution for the problem faced by so many young marrieds who are doomed to a single life of loneliness should they decide to separate. As it is now, through no fault of their own, they are forced to endure continence as a matter of obligation.
In addition, I have clearly affirmed the immutable principle of the permanency of the married state. In doing this, I have purposely avoided using the word “divorce” because the Catholic use of this word clearly denotes an infraction of the unchangeable principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
The indissolubility is so deeply embedded in the traditions of both East and West, Orthodox as well as Catholic, that it can never be questioned. In effect, the Orthodox tradition itself has always held marriage indissoluble as the union of Christ and His Spouse, the Church, a union which remains the type exemplaire of the monogamous sacramental marriage of Christians. In Orthodox theology, divorce is nothing but a dispensation allowed the innocent party in certain, well-defined instances and from motives of purely pastoral concern, in virtue of what Orthodox theology calls the “principle of economy”, which means “dispensation” or, more accurately, “condescension”. This dispensation does not exclude or set aside the principle of indissolubility. This principle is even used in much the same way as the dispensation of a valid, consummated marriage are allowed by the Western Catholic Church through the Petrine Privilege. We are not speaking here of abuses; they are always possible, but they do not change the theological reality.
Therefore, it is this “dispensation” on behalf of the innocent spouse that I suggest be employed by the Catholic Church of the Western tradition. When I referred to the traditional Eastern interpretation of Matthew 5 and 19, I saw the eventual possibility of additional reasons for dispensations to supplement those already admitted by Western Catholics, such as fornication and the abandonment of one spouse by the other, so as to keep away the peril of damnation which menaces the innocent spouse. Such a dispensation would not cast any doubt upon the indissolubility of the marriage bond any more than do the other dispensations.
Such a proposal is not fruitless, despite what certain militant Roman canonists contend, beacuse it rests upon the indisputable authority of the blessed Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Churches—these same saints who are annually commemorated in the Roman liturgical calendar—who cannot be accused of having given up truth while interpreting the Lord’s words, or of interpreting the Lord’s words to suit their personal ambitions.
It is the perspective of the universal fidelity of the East, as well as of the West, that the Roman Church has never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern ruling favorable to the remarriage of the innocent marital partner, either after the separation of the two great Christian halves of the Church, or during their long centuries of unity.
To anyone who has observed the Eastern Catholic communities in union with Rome, it goes without saying that in these days—and it grieves me to admit it—almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches follow contemporary Latin-Roman discipline and practices with regard to remarriage.
As for the Eastern way of viewing divorce and remarriage, objective evidence proves that the Fathers and Doctors of the East who developed the basic tenets of all Christian doctrine could not have been influenced by politics or any other aspect of Byzantine civil or legal tradition in interpreting Christ’s words in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 as they did. To assume this would be to forget what the universal Church owes to their knowledge and holiness.
The Justinian Code which was promulgated toward the end of the sixth century adopted the Eastern discipline on marriage. But it would scarcely have influenced Origen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil [3], St. Epiphanius [4], and others who lived some 350 years before this Code was ever conceived, as some Latin canonists believe. The Justinian Code merely reflected the doctrine and practices of the Eastern Churches.
As we have seen, long before the schism with Rome, Eastern Christianity adopted the more lenient interpretation of the law (favoring the innocent party) and also put it into practice. And yet the Easterners were never condemned for this—-not during the first thousand years when they were in full and visible communion with the Roman See; not by the Ecumenical Councils over which presided the representatives of the Bishop of Rome and were attended by both Eastern and Western bishops; and not by any other high authorities in the undivided Church. These facts alone should be enough to prove that the Roman Church never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline in this matter.
The Church of the East has always followed this tradition of tolerance of divorce and has remained faithful to it. The West maintained it for many hundreds of years with the positive approval of many of its bishops, popes, and councils, and in fact never attempted to condemn it in the East, even after cessation of its practice in the West.
In conclusion, we reiterate that this is an exegetical, canonical and pastoral problem which cannot be ignored. As for the opportunity of permitting a new reason (or reasons) for dispensation analogous to those already introduced in the Roman Church by reason of the Petrine Privilege, this decision remains in the hands of the Church.
NOTES
3. St. Basil, in whose immediate family were several saints, was Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia during the fourth century. He said: “I am not sure that a womn who lives with a man who has been abandoned by his wife could be called adulterous.”
4. St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Constantia on Cyprus during the fourth century, wrote: “Divine Law does not condemn a man who has been abandoned by his wife, nor a woman who has been abandoned by her husband, for remarrying.” See also the following:
“Better to break a marriage than be damned.” From Homily on 1 Corinthians by St. John Chrysostom (Migne: P.G. 61, 155)
“He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adulter, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife [in similar circumstances] takes another husband, the Divine Logos does not condemn him or exclude him from the Church…” From Against Heresies by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Migne: P.G. 41, 1024)
For a further explanation of conditions that are tantamount to death so far as the marriage bond is concerned, see Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective by John Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1970).
June 17, 2008 at 1:08 am
For what it’s worth, in the early 1970s the “early Ratzinger” argued something very similar to the Eastern position and quoted St Basil as saying that when people have done penance one should not bar them from the Eucharist. I can’t find the reference now, but it shouldn’t be all that difficult to track down. Also, Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna – who is said to be on good terms with the pope – has recently argued for a more pastoral policy. For more see here http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11465/
It would be interesting of course to investigate what factors led to the West developing the way it did.
And this also has broader implications that apply to other issues. The fundamental point, as Archbishop Zoghby argues, is how the West can reject something in principle which was accepted in the undivided Church. Which does sort of take us back to your posts on Ratzinger and the Fathers…
June 18, 2008 at 1:03 am
Sr. Macrina,
With the clue you supplied, I managed to locate this passage that reflects Cardinal Ratzinger’s views in the early 70’s. It is from an essay he wrote in 1972, and is quoted in John Allen Jr., Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, pp. 76-77.
Very interesting indeed. I wonder if he has changed his mind since then, or of late. At any rate, his reading of the patristic witness of St. Basil is, I think, crucial.
Thanks also for the link to the article on Cardinal Schonborn. My deep respect for him has deepened even more.
W.H.
June 18, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Thanks for finding the quote, Wei-Hsien. I’m pretty sure that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Ratzinger took a rather different line, notably in response to the more pastoral proposals of the German (and I think also the French, although my memory is a bit hazy) bishops in the early nineties (I think).
June 19, 2008 at 12:52 am
Two other items of interest for those who’d like to look into this more:
1) Dr. Peter Gilbert’s thoughts on the subject of divorce posted on his weblog De Unione Ecclesiarum (I owe this reference to Eirenikon Editor); and
2) St. Basil the Great’s Letter 188 (To Amphilochius), no. 4, in which he deals with giving communion to those who are remarried.
June 19, 2008 at 4:17 am
Am I dealing with Protestants? This proposal of the late Archbishop Zoghby is poison and to hear it praised is a knife twisted in an already open wound! Wei-Hsien Wan, I have read your comments elsewhere and occasionally some of your posts here so I would like it to be known that I have great respect for you. However, I cannot follow you in praising this pernicious and damning proposal. I will reveal personal details so that you know why this upsets me so and why I am probably incapable of speaking dispassionately on it.
I AM the aggrieved party. I am the abandoned spouse, the innocent party. I did not wrong my wife, she wronged me. I did everything I could to preserve what had been a happy and short marriage but to no avail. The troubles of my wife that are fundamentally responsible for her abandoning the marriage are immaterial to the discussion so I will only say that my wife was not wicked and did not hurt me from a malicious intent but rather because of the delusions in her head.
I was not called to a life of perpetual continence, I was called to marriage. My whole life I prepared for it and longed for it, especially the blessing of children. Now I find myself in a situation not of my making and potentially fatal to the life I was called to. I do not want to be single, I was not called to be single and I do not deserve to be single; but who gets what they deserve? If what we deserve was what we were given then our just reward would be eternal damnation.
Do you not think that I struggle every day with what my potential future is; with the uncertainty of what my state in life is to be? I struggle daily and by the moment with the consequence of what has occurred. Dashed upon the rocks are my visions of the future, of the children I would have had and the life-long companion I have lost. Even now I long for her return even though I know such a hope is in vain. She will not come back and I must face the future alone.
Do you think that I have not thought about seeking solace in the arms of another? The betrayal of a spouse is worse than murder! Many a time I have wished that she had just put a bullet in me instead of subjecting me to this pain. The temptation that even for a moment another might relieve me of this pain is almost too much to resist. However, the Lord will not give me a burden too great to bear.
This proposal of Archbishop Zoghby is tantamount to saying that God will not grant me grace sufficient to bear the suffering of this life! I do not desire perpetual continence but that is what I must practice now, the same as if I had never married. The “insult” to my “inherent dignity” is to insinuate that I am incapable of controlling myself. With God’s help I can do anything!
To say that one is“…doomed to a single life of loneliness should they decide to separate.” is to say that being single is a curse of despair. I do not want to be single, I never did, but I shall not despair of my situation because I have hope in our Lord and in His body and bride the Church.
“Economy” is not a panacea for all the ills and suffering of this world. Hope, faith and love along with the grace our Lord gives us in the Sacraments and other means are what will sustain us through all our troubles. I do not need to be given an exception from the unbreakable commands of God. I am not some poor unfortunate who is too weak to take the narrow road but must instead be given a broad path. I am an adopted son of the Almighty and I will not be robbed of my inheritance by some well intentioned prelate who wants to make things easier for me by smoothing the path to Hell!
I will address this topic and the Archbishop’s arguments further in another comment once I calm down and have time to interact with the material.
June 19, 2008 at 4:47 am
Regarding august Fathers and their teaching:
The argument that because Eastern Saints are venerated in the Western-half of the Church and honored and studied they therefore should be followed in all matters is an argument that cuts both ways. St. Augustine is honored by the East; should the Eastern Orthodox therefore follow him in all matters? If the Eastern Fathers are to be followed regarding re-marriage should not the Latin Fathers from before the schism be followed regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost?
As a Latin-rite Catholic I was not taught that every utterance of a Saint, a Father, or Doctor of the Church was infallible and beyond reproach and correction. It is the unanimous or near-unanimous consent of the Fathers that demonstrated a particular teaching is part of the deposit of faith. Am I to believe that every piece of advice St. Basil gave is equal to the words of our Lord, to the Word himself? Was it Basil who was begotten consubstantial with the Father? Did Basil redeem me by hanging upon the Cross? Is the Church the bride of Basil and his body? This is not to denigrate St. Basil whom I hold in high regard but only to show that Basil is not above the express commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I excerpt now from the letter of Basil that Wei-Hsien Wan linked to:
IX. The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle He which is joined to a harlot is one body and of Jeremiah, If a wife become another man’s shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? And again, He that has an adulteress is a fool and impious. Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.
What is the context of this letter? Basil is addressing a question of discipline, not defining a dogmatic truth. His advice is to be headed and listened to but should it not be kept in mind that this most learned of Saints might have been in error? Is it so hard to imagine that Basil might have gone too far in his compassion and given concession to the hardness of our hearts over God’s created order just as Moses did? And what of the other things Basil advises in this section? Should we demand that abused wives remain with their husbands? Are we prepared to counsel this along with “economy” towards re-marriage?
To be continued…
June 19, 2008 at 5:26 am
Chrysostom: “Better to break a marriage than be damned.”
I have not been able to locate this quote yet. Chrysostom’s homily can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220119.htm
The closest I’ve found so far is:
Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart, for in this case the matter is no longer fornication. But what is the meaning of, if the unbelieving departs? For instance, if he bid you sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of your marriage, or else part company; it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness. Wherefore he adds, A brother is not under bondage, nor yet a sister, in such cases. If day by day he buffet you and keep up combats on this account, it is better to separate. For this is what he glances at, saying, But God has called us in peace. For it is the other party who furnished the ground of separation, even as he did who committed uncleanness.
From the context it is clear that St. John Chrysostom is discussing the marriage of a Christian and a pagan. This in no way supports the idea that Christians should be allowed to remarry.
June 19, 2008 at 5:57 am
Wei-Hsien Wan,
I have cross-posted my comments at Eirenikon because that is where I linked to your posts from. Instead of hogging your comment box I will address Annulments, etc. over at Eirenikon.
Again, I have great respect for you but I find Archbishop Zoghby’s proposal dangerous and damaging to the faith.
James G
June 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
James,
Christ is in our midst.
Let me begin by saying that, as one who cannot comprehend in the slightest degree the pain you are experiencing, I am sorry to hear of the disaster that has befallen your marriage. I am a professed celibate man, and have personally experienced neither the joy nor suffering of married life.
With respect to Archbishop Elias’ proposal, my impression is that your own experience has distorted the nature and intent of what he said. He did not say that God will not give you or any other abandoned spouse the grace to live in continence. He did not say that people in your situation can by no means control themselves. What he did say was that some people who have been abandoned by their spouse do not feel the way you do about perpetual continence, and that the Church should take that into the deepest consideration. It was Paul who wrote to the (perhaps) white-knuckled ascetic Corinthians:
The complex socio-cultural environs of Corinth aside, this spirit is what we Easterners call oikonomia. (I know this text is often used to justify marriage as a “remedy for conscupiscence”, but that is a battle I’ll fight another day.)
Oikonomia is the condescension of God which reaches out to those like me who am weak in faith, hope and love, who only know about ideals but find themselves repeatedly incapable of reaching them. I do not doubt that you have greater strength than I do, or that you probably live chastity far more faithfully than I do. I doubt only that there are many Catholics out there, in this day and age, whose commitment to the divine ideal is as great as yours. From my experience, the apparent refusal of the Church to empathize with the marital struggles and dilemmas of her children is one of the greatest reasons people withdraw from any practice of the faith at all.
There were those in ancient Israel who were hard of heart, to whom the concession was granted by Moses (with God’s permission, nonetheless), and there are many of us in the new covenant who are still hard of heart today. You wrote: “I do not need to be given an exception from the unbreakable commands of God. I am not some poor unfortunate who is too weak to take the narrow road but must instead be given a broad path.” But there many, many Christians whose faith is much weaker, who are poor and unfortunate, who are too weak to walk the narrow road and must instead have it renovated and be pushed along with a wheelchair. I suspect that, if I had gone through what you had gone through, I’d be one of these spiritual invalids, and, being unworthy to find myself a seat at the Eucharistic table, would gladly eat any scrap that falls of it.
With respect to the Eastern fathers, I think neither Archbishop Elias nor I would regard their words as being on par with Scripture. That being said, St. Basil is not just “another saint”, but one who is in the West accorded the title “Doctor” and in the East “our father among the saints”, a pastor-theologian who shaped the Eastern ethos distinctly. But Archbishop Elias did not maintain that St. Basil’s letter should be taken as a definitive ruling—only that it bears testimony to the leniency of the Eastern Fathers. As a side note, as to whether or not an abused wife ought to remain with her husband, I doesn’t seem to me that St. Basil decreed anything. He only thought that it might be “better” for her endure (to what limits he does not say), and even that is all prefaced by the acknowledgment that this is “custom” as distinguished from “the sentence of the Lord”.
Thank you again for this conversation.
Your brother in Christ,
W.H.
June 20, 2008 at 1:04 am
Wei-Hsien Wan,
Thank you for your kind words. If in my fire I have offended you in any way I beg pardon. I am probably incapable of reading the Archbishop’s words with the charity in which they were intended; however, I still believe that implementing such a “pastoral” proposal would be dangerous to the faith and further harm Christian marriage.
I believe Dr. Gilbert put it quite well in the essay you linked to: “…human beings, infinitely adept at deluding themselves and justifying themselves, will take every measure to get out of what seems to them a miserable situation except the one measure which is most vital and essential, which is to change their own hearts.” Any compromise or concession to the hardness of our hearts on this issue will only lead to more evil. Look at what has happened amongst the Protestants who gave in on this matter only recently in the last century. Things have devolved so badly that divorce for the most frivolous of reasons is accepted with no stigma at all attached to adulterous second, third or fourth marriages. I know a good church-going Protestant woman who rivals the Samaritan woman at the well!
I know I went a little far in my tirade, especially as concerns St. Basil. I meant no disrespect to him but only wanted to hammer home the point that even so august a Father does not trump the very words of our Lord; especially when it is in giving pastoral advice and not a teaching on the faith. The way I read Basil’s letter is not as setting a policy but in counseling forgiveness. That is, I do not read Basil as saying that the re-marriage of the innocent party should be encouraged or supported in any way; only that those who have already done such a thing should be treated with compassion upon repentance and not as harshly as adulterers-proper. Again, if even Moses conceded too much to the hardness of our hearts than so too could Basil in his compassion.
Finally, I am in no way any great man of faith. I am a weak, weak man and the temptations of the flesh are constant. It is especially hard given that I became quite accustom to enjoying the marital embrace. That may be a good thing in that it is not so much carnal relationship that I desire but the marital union so that anything less is not as great a temptation. Still, lust is an ever present and pervasive vice. In no way am I any greater than any other unfortunate who is in a similar situation. As such, it should be expected that those separated from their spouses will follow God’s will regarding continence the same as those not-yet-married. Just as we cannot condone fornication or cohabitation amongst the unmarried we cannot tolerate it amongst the divorced either. All we can do is offer forgiveness to those who have fallen and repented of their sin.
June 20, 2008 at 12:01 pm
James,
Christ is in our midst. No apologies necessary because no offense taken.
It is always tempting for Catholics to use the Protestant churches as a kind of “background contrast” to our own faith and practice, especially in the areas of divorce, contraception, biblical interpretation, etc. However, we seemed to have moved into a very large and poorly constructed glass house of late, so we probably shouldn’t be caught with too many stones in our own hands.
I have to agree with Dr. Gilbert’s analysis of the Catholic situation. The fact is that we have many of our own who are living in what we call “irregular marriages” today, and I think if we did an actual numeric study we’d find ourselves right alongside the Protestant communions, if not worse. These Catholics find themselves in one of two situations: they are either doing their best to participate in the life of the Church while being barred from the sacraments, or they are alienated from her entirely. The latter group is certainly the larger, and the reason we don’t “see” them is because they’re not around anymore.
We have to do something about this. If Rome believes she has the right to dissolve certain kinds of marriages (cf. the so-called “Petrine” and “Pauline” privileges), then certainly she can do something about these other “irregular” forms for the love of God.
Oikonomia, like all other manifestations of love, can and will be abused by fallen human beings. But of this there is only one Judge, just as in the parables of Jesus, the sorting of the wheat from the weeds belongs to God alone. The Church is certainly beholden to the ideals and standards of the Gospel, but she is also, in the mind of the Fathers, the fulfillment of Noah’s life-bearing Ark. It is her responsibility to make sure that there are enough ramps and ropes for people to get aboard—including the stragglers who will barely “make it”.
Bottom line is, we can point fingers all we want at the Protestants or the Orthodox for their “leniency” toward marriage, but our triumphalism can only be sustained by ignoring the fact that our own faithful have as many marital struggles as they do by virtue of our being creatures of clay. At least the Protestants and the Orthodox are free to be honest about their disasters, and for that, I think they are better off. About that, there will be a forthcoming post on this weblog, I hope.
W.H.
June 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Fascinating discussion.