Divorce and re-marriage
No doubt a topic that has been discussed here before. (Links to previous discussions helpful, but I didn't wish to resurrect old ones). So, from a theological perspective what are people's views? I have recently encountered a "no re-marriage after divorce under any circumstances" viewpoint expressed elsewhere and find it quite a graceless one.
Comments
My particular denomination does not see marriage as a sacrament. It is, rather, a civil contract that can be blessed by the church.
I would say the biggest challenge is to make sure the new partner is compatible.
But, I would also say that if an individual ends up in serial marriages, there might be a personality disorder (i.e. Borderline Personality Disorder) that might be behind all the failures.
The Anglican delegates simply looked on. Most concluded that they found the Orthodox position far more gracious. They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies.
I find that more pragmatic and humane than the blanket ban in the RCC and some independent evangelical outfits.
Wtf. "They allow up to three remarriages after a divorce and there's a penitential aspect in subsequent marriage ceremonies." I do wonder who these people are to make these sort of decisions.
Clearly the disciples are a bit shocked by it: "if that's how things are, it sounds like we'd be better off not getting married at all!" - response "YES you are in fact correct..."
Why? What decision would you make? A blanket ban?
Whatever else we might say about it, the Orthodox approach at least acknowledges human frailty and allows a second or third (but not a fourth, fifth or forty fifth) chance.
Jesus was answering a question asked by people living in a specific culture. He was not delivering an opinion for the ages.
He did not need to - any listeners knew the context in which He was speaking.
FWIW, the 2018 edition of the liturgical book of my tribe (use of which is not mandatory) includes a short service of “Prayer at the End of a Marriage.” It is brief, and while designed for participation of both spouses can be adapted if only one spouse is present. It includes confession, prayers for healing and the return of the rings, with expressions of gratitude for the good that came from the marriage, children in particular.
I’ve no idea how much it will be used, but apparently there were numerous requests for such a service, and I suppose that just the fact that it’s included says something about our approach to divorce and pastoral care for those who divorce. We don’t view marriage as a sacrament either, but do think of it in terms of a covenant.
What's your definition of "successful marriage"? The figure in my head is that 2/3 or so of second marriages end in divorce. If you divorce, remarry, have a half dozen happy years, then divorce, does that count as "successful"?
This is correct. And it's far from automatic. One must have episcopal permission to remarry. But part of Orthodox soteriology is that marriage is give to us not just for the raising of children etc etc but also as a means of salvation. Working out a life with another person prepares us for the Kingdom of Heaven. Part of our wedding service is the wearing of crowns. Indeed the point in the wedding before which the couple are not married and after which the couple are married is the priest saying, "The servant of God Joe is crowned to the handmaiden of God Bella in the name of the FSHG. The handmaiden of God Bella is crowned to the servant of God Joe in the name of the FSHG." The crowns are explicitly stated to be the crowns of martyrdom. In marriage we give up our own wills, and our own lives, for the sake of the other person. This is believed to be a type (as in typology) of martyrdom.
Hence when a marriage dies, the chance of the person to experience that martyrdom is taken away, and this aid to salvation is denied them. This is the reason for allowing subsequent marriages.
Perhaps he did, and the person writing the episode down some decades later, relying on the memories of a person or people who were there, only knew about the initial comment. There was no recording device there. We simply do not know what specific words Jesus used, or how many he used, or what else he said about any contingent issue.
Here is a great article that may help answer your concerns.
His website reproduces his academic book on the subject, and also done shorter journal-length treatments such as this one.
In short he concludes that the NT recognises the reality of marriage breakdown, and does not prohibit remarriage after divorce.
The problem that had emerged in Jesus' time was men using the "break glass box" provision of divorce frivolously.
Jesus explicitly says that divorce was permitted by Moses because of the hardness of people's hearts. It was not in the original blueprint, but provided as an accommodation and in recognition of our flawed natures. It's not so much an entitlement to be exercised at will as an option provided with and by grace when no other solution is possible.
In my own pastoral ministry I've come across remarried divorcees who positively brandish their remarriage as an entitlement. The most surreal one being a pastor I've mentioned previously here who claimed, in print, that his illegitimate daughter by his secretary was the "lock" that proved his right to divorce his wife and remarry her. Fortunately this attitude is rare.
There's no doubt in my mind that in the Bible, divorce, should it occur, carries with it the right to remarry.
It still happens today. Hundreds of women are left "agunot": "anchored" women unable to remarry and subject to many and varied threats by husbands unwilling to grant a divorce for a variety of reasons. The Rabbinate always takes the side of the husband. (No, be fair Galilit, only 99% of the time!)
More and more young people are having an unrecognised ceremony with varying degrees of overt religious contents. (Unrecognised by the Rabbinate). They follow that with , a Civil Union eg in Cyprus, which is recognised by the State of Israel.
Or if you are very lucky you can get declared as Common Law spouse by a bureaucratic procedure under the supervision of the Social Seurity Department
Well, not quite. If you, for example, married a close cousin in order to consolidate family lands, you might well be able to get a papal dispensation allowing a divorce on the grounds of consanguinity if the political situation required it. Also, if the Pope needed you to do something for him, like leading an army against Arab raiders terrorizing the environs of Rome, I'm sure you could convince him that really, your current marriage was unlikely to produce any heirs and should therefore be dissolved so you could marry a concubine and legitimize your only surviving son. The possibilities are unlimited if you have the Pope in your debt.
And very limited indeed if the Pope is under the thumb of a relative of your current spouse, as Henry VIII discovered.
Matthew is writing to a Jewish Christian audience where it was generally not possible for women to divorce, so the saying about divorce there is addressed only about men divorcing their wives.
Mark is writing to an audience where women, as well as men, can divorce and so Mark presents Jesus as saying that women can also commit adultery by remarrying. Even though the question of the Pharisees refers only to men divorcing their wives, Mark extends this to women through a question that the disciples (who being the slow disciples of Mark) ask later.
If Matthew has Mark as a source for his Gospel, then he does not use this passage as it would be out of place for his audience.
So we may have an interesting sequence where:
Well yes. That was just one of Our Henry's awful blunders. In his situation, I think I would have just topped Kathy.
But I am thinking of a woman in an abusive marriage who considered her vows to be binding, though she did in the end leave. Then, presented with a loving person willing to marry her and care for her son, she felt she was not allowed to do so, having swallowed the teaching whole. It took a bishop to get her free.
There must be many women - looking at a giant billboard in Lewisham about the numbers of abusive marriages during covid - who need to be taught that they do not need to add the church to all the difficult reasons for not leaving.
Well, it could be argued he did.
He stated that 'this is because of your hardness of heart'. In other words, because you treat marriage like your own personal access to self-satisfaction and dump your wives hither and thither without thinking of the effect on them of your selfishness, Moses instituted this law designed to dissuade you from abusing marriage in that way.
Jesus's reiteration of the teaching here is interesting, and makes for a challenging preach. Though still not as interesting as how thoroughly it is now being completely ignored by huge swathes of the so-called 'Bible-Believing' fraternity. Plain writ of scripture apparently it is not, no longer!
Out of interest, how much discretion does the bishop have? Are there some circumstances where he is canonically forbidden or required to grant the remarriage?
Also (and I appreciate I'm kind of asking you to trash-talk your own church here), how controversial are episcopal decisions? I know Catholics of all stripes who think their clergy grant or withhold annulments for reasons which are not entirely impartial or in keeping with the spirit of Catholic canon law. I've never had the sense that similar complaints exist in Orthodoxy, but then I don't have much contact with the Orthodox world.
I understand how this works for Catholics: the divorce is invalid, therefore the marriage with Wife #1 still exists, therefore the marriage with Wife #2 does not exist, therefore any relations with Wife #2 are adulterous.
But if polygamy is allowed, then an invalid divorce just means that the husband is married to Wife #1 and Wife #2 at the same time. So the relations with Wife #2 are not adulterous (although they may be wrong on some other grounds).
The may indeed seem harsh and graceless but they are ,after all, the words of Jesus (assuming that the Gospels teach us 'gospel truth').
The problems posed by marriage relationships are not unique to Christianity.
Secular marriage and /or partnership relationships can provide for very difficult and unharmonious situations for partners in the relationship in the separation of goods and the provision for those who come after and the civil law can also sometimes appear to be harsh and graceless.
Many Christians see marriage only as a civil arrangement which may or may not have a sort of add-on church blessing. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church see marriage as a sacrament.
Both Catholics and Orthodox will have at times marital problems and the communities have had to find some way round these problems while preserving the idea of the dignity and 'sanctity' of the marriage.
Please don't think I am trying to say that others don't believe at all in the 'sanctity ' of marriage but they do see things differently.
It would seem that Orthodox Christians can get an episcopal dispensation whilst Catholics can get an annulment of the effect of the religious marriage.
I would be surprised if an Orthodox episcopal dispensation is handed out willy-nilly (nolens-volens) and certainly Catholic annulments are looked into closely before being granted.
Given the widespread modern use of civil divorce to end a relationship this fact means that the problem is raised much more than it used to be.
Of course people can say all manner of things about annulments but they do provide one way round the problem of the inability of the Catholic Church to end a marriage before the death of one of the partners.
I do remember the Orthodox coming across as more lenient and pastorally sensitive than our RC friends at that conference. I'm not out to have a go at the RCC but that's how it struck other - mainly Anglican - delegates and myself.
I'm reminded of similar defences of conservative positions on gender and sexuality which boil down to "we're not homophobic, transphobic and sexist, but God is so we have to go along with that."
Good question. The traditional answer is that a marriage is only "successful" if it ends in a funeral. By this reasoning a marriage that lasts twenty years and parts amicably with the parties remaining friends afterwards is "unsuccessful", whereas one that's a nightmare of mutual abuse is "successful" if one of the parties dies before getting out.
I'm not sure I buy this definition of marital "success".
That's slightly unfair. One could consider "till death us do part" to be a necessary criterion for a successful marriage without considering it to be sufficient. Surely if you think "till death us do part" is essential then you think the same of "to love and to cherish".
Of course the Church would prefer that there aren't the various problems to do with marriage vows but they are there nevertheless and the Church has to try to find a way round these problems just as others do.
'to love and to cherish till death us do part' The Church would teach that one should try to love and cherish the chosen marriage partner until death. That is the ideal situation which is put before us by the Church. We know that we cannot always live up to these ideals but it is important that they are put before us.
One of the ways that I like is to try to see the complete breakdown of a relationship as a 'death' and that the relationship can be formally ended with the 'death' of at least one of the partners.
I do not accept for one minute the idea of Karl B that the Church says 'we are not homophobic,transphobic and sexist but God is, so we'll have to go along with it.
The only correct thing is that GOD IS and we have to do our best to follow Him even if it may appear unpopular.
So if God is homophobic, transphobic and sexist we should be those things ourselves?
If we don't think he is, why do we think he wants us to act as if we are?
What I am saying is God is not those things, unless he's a very poor, bigoted type of God.
More like: "if what God appears to be saying looks horrific and loveless, then we need to consider whether we've correctly understood what God is saying". I'd rather have to seek forgiveness for erring on the side of compassion than risk having to seek it for being one of those who "tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them". Too often the church looks like it does that.
The Dominican even went as far as to accuse Pope Francis of heresy for even contemplating allowing divorcees to receive Communion.
It's not that often you're in a meeting where an RC theologian accuses a Pope of heresy. Did he just say what I thought he said?
Or perhaps I haven't been in enough meetings with Dominican theologians?
In a good way or a bad way?
Arethosemyfeet has used the words 'appears' and 'looks as if' If he is absolutely convinced that this is horrific and loveless ,then why not simply say it' is horrific and loveless'
If you can only say 'it looks as if .. then there may be some doubt .
If we say that 'what God has joined together no man can put asunder' are the words or, at the least, the teachings of Jesus, than we cannot easily put them aside.
That is why the Catholic Church cannot dissolve what it believes to be a sacramental marriage.
We try to find ways around this in trying to determine what exactly a sacramental marriage is and offer ,where possible, an annulment.
Gamma G will indeed have heard an orthodox Dominican say that there is no room for movement on the dissolution of a valid Catholic marriage.
There can, however, be varying suggestions as to what constitutes a valid Catholic marriage.
The reception of Communion by civilly divorced and civilly remarried Catholics is a quite different matter.
When an annulment is requested, there is an investigation, which (if successful) finds some defect in intent at the time of the marriage, and so argues that it is not a valid marriage.
It is inconceivable that the same defect in intent was not present at the time of marriage for many couples who do not seek an annulment.
But the logic of annulment is not that the defect in intent gives a reason to dissolve a marriage - it is that the defect in intent is, in itself, conclusive proof that the marriage never existed.
Combine the last two statements, and you are forced to conclude that there are a lot of Catholics out there who think they are married, but aren't.
And that seems like a stupid conclusion to me.
I'm pretty sure the tradition is that any marriage ending in a funeral is a good one. It doesn't matter if that's dying peacefully in your sleep after fifty happy years together or some horrific murder-suicide situation. It's all "good".
What I find interesting is the unquestioned assumption that Jesus is speaking literally about marriage in these passages. Given the number of times Jesus uses marriage metaphorically it's interesting that this one passage is considered to unambiguously mean that a woman has to stick with her abusive husband even if it kills her. (See above.)
The strict interpretation of this passage is also one of the reasons Christian churches have usually been so opposed to recognizing that spousal rape is a thing. Under this doctrine codifying spousal rape as a criminal offense is man putting asunder what God has said should be joined.
We are not meant to kill people either but it happens and it is not usual to refuse to bury the corpse because it should not have happened.
We shouldn’t damage a marriage beyond hope of recovery, but if we have - surely we should recognise it and lay it down.
I think this is key to my understanding. Marriages get ended. Nobody is saying that the church should be in the business of ending them, but simply acknowledging what has happened and working from there. Christ's words, to me, say that marriages shouldn't be ended, not that they can't be.
I can't imagine that if a woman had come to Jesus, explained that her husband was getting drunk and beating her and her children every night that his response would be "well you'd better choose between staying with the violent drunk or a life of poverty and unwanted celibacy". The man in this hypothetical has already ended the marriage.
Given that both passages are presented as responses to direct questions by the Pharisees, the relevant question is whether the Pharisees were speaking literally.
Thanks.
As far as anyone can tell, does the bishop tend to judge on the basis of blame (e.g., Sergei was at fault for the breakdown of his first marriage, therefore he can't have a second one), or is it more a case of 'Sergei's first marriage is well and truly dead, but Vladimir and Yekaterina's might have a bit of life left in it, they should try to patch up before any talk of second marriages'?
The Church does not and cannot force and in some cases would not counsel couples to live together when the relationship has broken down. The only thing which it can do is to refuse to marry canonically those who would appear already to be married, in the sense that the Church understands marriage.
I think that a lot more work has to be done by the Church to integrate as fully as possible those who for one reason or another are unable to live up to the teachings of the Church on marriage and on sexuality.
mousethief says and I am pleased that he says this that he doesn't hear many Orthodox Crhistians complain about episcopal dispensations allowing a person to marry a second and a third time.
It's a pity,I think,that so many people complain about annulments.
I'm not sure that matters. In the Gospels Jesus has a habit of not answering the questions he's asked but rather the questions he thinks he should have been asked. (e.g. Q: Who is my neighbor? A: Just be a good neighbor, and good neighbors don't sit around parsing questions like "who is my neighbor?".)
Interesting use of the negative voice there. The Church "in some cases would not counsel couples to live together when the relationship has broken down", but no comment on what the Church would counsel. Or how such counsel can be squared with the directive not to "put asunder" such marriages. How does an abused spouse proceed without "put[ting] asunder" their marriage?