A new theology of divorce

More untruths spread about the annulment process from a supposedly Catholic publication.

It is interesting, is it not, that the Catholic clergy allow themselves the luxury of "divorce." That is, one can be ordained a priest, and in a purely pro forma fashion request release from one's vows "to marry" and go on one's merry way.

Oh, but let those initial "vows" be matrimonial and well, you're toast as regards future happiness if the decision doesn't work out and you don't care to deny that honest, true, love actually ever lived...

Does it ever occur to the Magisterium that one of the antecedants to a truly Christian, spiritual, life is "happiness?" And that a real inhibitor to that happiness is being proscribed from having a real, fulfilled, complete, life partner?

One of these days the bishops might actually, you know, open a book or read a report by someone other than themselves... someone who actually is married, was married, is pondering marriage out in the real world.

Then they might be emboldened to embrace the sociological findings of many who point to societal ills of unemployment, poverty, domestic violence and violence in general, alcoholism and drug addiction, neighborhoods rotting unattended, social programs that forced fathers from the home (in order to qualify their families to recieve food stamps and aid) back in the 60s and 70s - thus dismantling entire communities and ethnic cultures... as the factors most causative of divorce. These factors are also the ones most influential in early cohabitation, immaturity in choosing a partner, pre-pubescent sexual acting out, lack of relational skills, etc.

Then, refreshed by the input of someone's opinion other than their own, the US Bishops may discover actual interest in studying how their unconditional embrace of consumer culture and the so-called free market, their aggressive defense of the Republican political, economic and social values of the last 4 decades has actually led to an increase in the degree to which older white male Americans have found ways to legitimize the industries that make money off of the pornography industry, the sexual exploitation of minors, the further alienation of women and, yes, even avenues for sexual predation on one another.

Then, who knows, they might have a few more things to blame breakdown of our society and marriage upon than the ones they have chosen. They might acknowledge that we have made a mess of it in our society and that what we currently train peoiple for is isolated consumerism rather than dedicated sharing.

They might realize that with all these odds stacked up against them, for a person to be willing to take a chance on another human being and make a solemn commitment to love and abide together in this society is truly a wonderous and holy event... gay or straight. And, that what one offers is his or her best attempt, which carries with it the sum of all those above-mentioned influences. So if it turns out to be unsuccesful, rather than penalize them for trying, we should develop ministries and sacramental practices that heal them, nurture them and prepare them to move forward again, having learned from their mistakes, and helped rather than hindered by their communities of faith.

They might even take heart from that man Jesus, who sat with the woman at the well through the heat of the day chatting, and not only did he not condemn her, he allowed her to become the very first person in the gospel to know him as the Messiah, and to go out (to her village) and create converts to him because of her testimony. (Hmmm, this is another topic, but it strikes me that they lie when they insist that he only sent out men.)

Or.... maybe not.

For all those who have tried the formal process of obtaining an external annulment, did the Church officials whom you first approached ever tell about the 2nd, internal option???
Since it depends upon a thorough but voluntary examination of one's conscience about the marital history, it is not widely taught in these days of following external rules and blind obedience...
Professional Catholics in the field of mental health service, eg, psycologists, are sufficient to help the individual's process it, not necessarily a priest or deacon.
I recommend it for others to check out...

Mk10:11-12 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

I don't think you want a "new" theology of divorce as much as you want to ignore what's currently in place.

Are y'all serious?!
This one isn't even based on a Church interpretation of her tradition, this issue was settled from the lips of Christ himself. Why are we even having this conversation?

Now, I could see how this issue could be addressed via more thorough discernment before marriage, but if you do contract a valid marriage you are married till the end. I don't see how the Church could yield to ones "I want"s and "I feel"s even if she wanted to. Though I will say a felix culpa of our age is that young people are so caught up in "I want/feel" that I am not sure how common a valid marriage is anymore.

This article's simplistic attitude about divorce and remarriage is more of an emotional reaction to his parents' situation than it is an honest discussion about divorce, annulment, and remarriage in the Church.

Thank you for this column, Mike. As a child of divorce and remarriage as well, I think you accurately capture the experience of many of us - that divorce is not necessarily an end, but a beginning and and opportunity for everyone (including the kids) to create new and life-giving relationships.

Wonderful article. I'm a divorced Catholic who is remarried without obtaining an annulment. In my area, the cost of an annulment is very close to $1000. per person. Your mother's friend should go to communion whenever she attends mass.The Eucharist is nourishment, strength and support.I'm sure Christ would not withhold that from her.I receive communion every time I attend mass,as does a friend who is also remarried without an annulment.God bless everyone, even the hierarchy.

Although I am greatly disturbed by the very high rates of divorce in modern societies because I suspect the damage to children of divorce is much greater than is commonly understood, I also believe our current practice (annulment) and former practice (no divorce) are very wrong and very unnecessary.

The Byzantine churches have a better way, an alternate theology of marriage and divorce, that we could and should adopt. Their practices long predate the schism of 1054 and therefore their approach coexisted with the Roman approach within the bosom of a single universal church without condemnation.

The Orthodox churches have a process for granting divorce, and they call it exactly what it is—divorce. And they have three liturgies for marriage, a liturgy for a first marriage, and for a second marriage, and for a third marriage. The difference among these services is that they are progressively more penitential. That is, the first is an uninhibited celebration of love, the second is more retrained celebration because of a tone of sorrow (we should not be here, a second marriage should not be necessary, something wrong has definitely happened for a second marriage to be required), and the third service mutes the celebration even further in the same direction.

Beneath this practice lies a different theology of marriage.

In the Roman church, we say that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, and the essential matter of the sacrament (if I recall correctly) is the mutual vowed contract, the free commitment the bride and groom make to one another. We then heartlessly apply Christ’s statement against divorce and force the couple to prove that this free mutual consent never actually existed as a condition for an annulment. And most of the time this is a sterile exercise of hypocrisy.

Orthodox theology understands the sacrament of marriage as a two step process. An engagement that is celebrated in the vestibule of the church as a solemn exchange of vows establishing a free mutual contract as a pre-condition, and then a marriage service in which the minister of the sacrament is the church. That is, it is the church that establishes the marriage, invoking our Christ given authority to bind and loose on earth with heavenly effect.

Thus, where a marriage fails, it is the judgement of church that has failed as much as the judgement of the couple. And thus at the second marriage, both the church and the couple express sorrow for their failure before expressing their joy in this second celebration of love.

There is a terrible irony in all this. The Roman concept of marriage is essentially that of a contract. Any contract can be freely broken by mutual consent of all parties. If free mutual consent is the foundation of marriage, than surely nothing more that free mutual consent should be required to dissolve the marriage. The Byzantine concept of marriage as an act of the church binding the couple on earth and in heaven requires an act of the church, invoking the same authority, to loose the couple. Yet we Romans deny divorce, and the Orthodox allow it!

As far as I know, we are theologically free to adopt the orthodox practice as our own simply because it is equally ancient and fully sanctioned in our former united, universal church. As far as I know, there has never been any suggestion from the Roman church that the Orthodox practices in any way involve heretical doctrines. In other words, the refusal to adopt a more humane Christian disciple for marriage is essentially the same as the Roman refusal to restore the former practice of a married priesthood—stupid recalcitrance without any theological necessity.

Am I reading this essay correctly, that divorce should now be seen as a positive moral good?

Back in the late 60's, Msgr. Stephen Kelliher, officialis of the NY Archdioces Tribunal said publicly the divorce (allowing it) was inevitable because "pewople sometimes through no fault of ther own just don't make it."
The next day he was removed and made a pastor in Scarsdale. He left the priesthood for a while, but returned and in his obituary a year or two ago was credited with ameliorating annulment proceedings.
Annulments have become easier to get doue to the transition from "insanity" to a lack of sufficent discretion as a basis.
Couples long married with children suddenly find there was no marriage in the eyes of the Church.
This is a "blessing" for the one who seeks it (like the famous Joe califano article in America a while back) but it may wreak havoc with the other partner and the children.
The problem is that canon law tries to buttress the conception of marriage with legal practices that may or may not have real believabilty for people. The essay here is a good example of that.
It's also true that many people just go on not paying attention to the rules on Communion and divorce.
Personally, I do no tsee how the forthcoming pastoral will solve any of this.

Anonymous: You wrote, "More untruths spread about the annulment process from a supposedly Catholic publication".

I'm wondering just what these UNTRUTHS are you mention?? Seems to me the author offered and honest, personal and real reflection on his life, his family's and his friends'. These are the experiences they had - the whol annullment process is nonsense. Just because a marriage breaks down does not mean it had to have been broken from the start (what the catholic annullment process requires). The whole process is so divorced (non-pun intended :)) from the actual reality of relationships/marriage is stunning.

Blessings

Sounds like the bishops want us back in the day when a wife was told to stay in an abusive marriage and pray. My parents were in a loveless marriage tainted by alcohol and some violence. My two sisters and I would have been better off had they separated, with or without remarrying. As regards the annulment process your writer describes, my first marriage was annuled. The process was very thorough, involving a great deal of candor and honesty on my part. But the tribunal members could not have been more priestly or more compassionate. I was asked to pay, if I could afford to do so, $250 to defray the costs of processing the annulment. During my hearing, I told the Tribunal that I was persuing the annulment as part of my amends to the Catholic Church, and that I planned to continue in my second marriage as a practicing Catholic whether or not they granted the annulment. I agree with the comment above that references who the clergy and religious can be dispensed from "permanent" vows, yet the laity are held to a different standard regarding failed marriages. But then, it's transparently obvious that there are two standards of justice in the church: one for the male caste system that runs the institution and another for the laity who are still expected merely to pray, pay and obey.

The hierarchy especially live in a world that disappeared centuries ago. Divorce in those days would have dis-inherited women and children, and left the elderly without an extended family to care for them. It was protection and social justice. Unfortunately, the hierarchy is hopelessly out of date and closed to change. In today's society we realize that staying in an unhealthy relationship is not, well, healthy. It doesn't benefit the children. Women have rights that protect them, and intelligence that they are now free to use to be self-sufficient. Science has discovered that relationships change and grow and sometimes people need to go their separate ways. Laws that were once helpful are now destructive and need to change.

It's an imperfect world and "church". Divorce, like marriage, happens between two "imperfect" people who try to make their life work in the presense of an "imperfect" authority. An annullment is also flawed, as marriage; thus, it's between you and your LORD. The "church" attempts to assist yet it's flawed and causes major problems for innocent children, us.
When LOVE, which is usually missing, is present in any action, harm is avoided and children are the true fruits of the relationship.

LOVE is the answer to all circumstances and Jesus Christ brought it to all who believe in Him.

I'm sorry, was there supposed to be some theology in this article?

Honesty is important. Annulment is often a fiction. I believe it can be obtained easier in some places that in others. Perhaps there is an need to resolve the issue, being faithful to the Church and to ourselves.

If I were the Dean of the Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, I would be embarrassed to admit that this man had earned a degree from my institution.

This article is merely a wan repetition of the reaction the Apostles had to the radical teaching that Jesus laid down as recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel in the 19th Chapter. They too came to the conclusion that this understanding of marriage was a hard teaching and posited that perhaps it would be better to not marry at all. The difference for the Apostles is that they continued to learn at the feet of the Master and they conformed to his teaching, rather than undermining it.
Perhaps if there were a little more focus on obedience, conversion, holiness, and faithfulness, then what God expects of married couples would become clearer.
I would be very interested to find out if his parents used contraception....
May God grant us all the grace to conform to him and not to the world!

We do have a problem with divorce. At one level it states that there are no promises that cannot be broken and that like "love" at the end of a telegram - "unto death..." is simply conversation. Divorce makes literally all sacraments less believable. Second to that is remarriage. See first list.

The annulmet process done well is a good process - however - of late the"feet to the fire" appraoch of bishops who somehow can't manage their own troops makes that process less than helpful. Realistically, if a marriage has failed - someone or both were unable to manage to participate in the Sacrament. Since it happens to be the only Sacrament confered by lay people on lay people and witnessed by the Church - one might be able to say that all good intentions aside "intent" at a saramental level didn't happen - probably at the end of what "forever" or "until death"- love - as in a feeling has never been sufficient to hold anything together - love is primarily activity in the face of a world in "crash and burn" - if folk didn't get that going in - like Cross of Jesus and all that - then the issue that it was incomplete as Sacrament makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that the Church would go ahead and marry the first time people who never truly understood love that way to begin with. But we know why. I have yet to meet a priest that doesn't turn to jello in the presence of either bridezilla - or worse - her mom who is a parishioner.

The Greek Orthodox have a better "take". The first marriage is Christ and all the Church and the Bridgroom you want to lavish on it. The second after counsel and advice is that of Noah - the permission to try again in the face of failure - no nuptial blessing - the blessing of Noah instead that pleads for forgiveness for the first failure - for understanding - for the children who end up as grist for the mill - and for the new relationship that this time they might somehow grow in Christ.

The other problems - cohabitation - not getting mariied to begin with and all that were intially responses to broken proomises - that there are no promises - a world that does not understand promise - it has happened - it cannot be undone - it can be dealt with better than we do now - and bishops yelling at lay people is just soooooo NOT the place ot start.

linda, osc (17 years married, now divorced and have chosen celibacy and chastity as the more appropriate gosepll response - as witness and for me - perhpas not for all)

Divorce is a sin pure and simple. To sanction divorce is to sanction sin. "What God has joined, let no man rend asunder."

Odd that I would have to post this on a "Catholic" site...

.

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, a book I am reading, is really a book about how we are becoming human. Becoming, is the key word. We have become much different from how we were a million years ago. It follows that our knowledge of God has become much different than it was a million years ago. Our becoming continues.
Our Jewish forefathers and mothers, did not allow graven images, not only because it was pagan, but because we will never get an image of God "right". We just don't know; hence, the need for faith, the evidence of things not seen.
What did Jesus say to the woman caught in adultery?
"Has no one condemned you? Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
What did Jesus do at the last supper? He washed feet. Then he commanded us to love one another "as I have loved you." Love is our great hope. We know what to do. Let's become up. Let's grow up. Let's step up.

.

Thank you Michael. I just want to say that this artilce is beautifully stated.

I fail to understand how one can toss aside one's wife or husband. I don't always get along with my siblings, my parents, or my daughter, but I wouldn't toss them aside.

I guess I'm just nutty that way that I consider my wife to have become a blood relative through the sacrament of catholic marriage. She fulfills a role in my family as my wife, and I can no more break that bond than I can break the bond with my mother or father.

If you just want a marriage that's a contract rather than a sacrament, in which you split property and agree to exclusive sexual relations... why go whole hog and get married in the Catholic Church where the meaning of marriage is different?

Our sympathy for people who are in bad marriages should not lead to a mistaken acceptance of divorce. Besides, even if any authority in Rome wanted to allow divorce, they couldn't. No man can destroy what is joined before God. There is no authority for divorce. Once people are married legitimately, they can't be unmarried. People who get divorced and remarried are subsequently committing adultery against the first spouses, whom they are still married to as far as God is concerned.

I also think the following line is super dumb: "But what happens when a couple turns to the Lord and is led to getting a divorce in order to live a happier life?"

As if God would lead people into sin when they turn to him for help? Come on Mike, what kind of God do you think you are following? One that would lead people to make decisions that jepordize their souls?

" They might realize that with all these odds stacked up against them, for a person to be willing to take a chance on another human being and make a solemn commitment to love and abide together in this society is truly a wondrous and holy event... gay or straight. And, that what one offers is his or her best attempt, which carries with it the sum of all those above-mentioned influences."

I love your comment DDee, I totally agree.

Greg Bullough makes an interesting comment. What he fails to add is that priests can be released from their vows after receiving at least six years full time preparation for thei vocations and what's more they don't have to prove that they didn't love God in the first place!

You are misguided sir and your opinions on this subject do damage to yourself, to valid marriages and to the Catholic Church.

Try reading here to reshape your thoughts:

http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/

and

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

A former Catholic

The Catholic Church effectively gives tacit approval to divorce with what has become the charade of annulment. In their 2002 book, “Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments”, Joseph Martos and Pierre Hegy state:

"Because the grounds for annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as ‘virtual divorces.’ After all, the same grounds for divorce in a civil court have ‘become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court.’ (Page 23) To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid – that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.”

In other words it is the Catholic game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

While I am happy that the author's particular situation turned out well, the fact remains that divorce destroys the fabric of marriage. Sometimes theologians call it a necessary evil, but to use one's personal experience to make judgements about what the church teaches about marriage and the family demonstrates the author's ignorance about what the church actually believes. I would hope that a masters degree in divinity from a Jesuit University implies a solid foundation in moral theology unlike what this author presented here online.

Jesus said that divorce is not permitted. You can try all you want to rationalize that clear statement away (as this author has), "but from the beginning it was not so."

It's a hard teaching, but if your marriage is valid, that's that. If you are abused, you are permitted a civil divorce, but you are still married in the eyes of the Church. A 'remarriage' while your spouse is still alive is adultery, and suggesting that such people have not sinned is a scandal!

If you don't like the Church's teachings, you don't have to be Catholic. If you choose to stay because you believe it is the true church, then it might be a good idea to actually follow the teachings of said church and its Founder instead of trying to change them to suit your liking.

Shouldn't there have been at least a perfunctory quotation from scripture to support his argument?

"But what happens when a couple turns to the Lord and is led to getting a divorce in order to live a happier life?" You mean life here on earth or life after death?

With respect to the author, this article show a lack of understanding on the Church's teaching on marriage, specifically on the covenantal nature of a marriage taught in Vatican II.

Vatican II taught us that a valid marriage is a covenant between the parties, not a contract. the difference is that a covenant (once validly entered) cannot be broken or ended by either of the party's subsequent actions – the covenant still exists despite the transgressions (while a contract can be ended by the parties based on their actions). The covenantal nature of the marriage is exactly how we want God to treat His Covenant with us, after all we are the ones that time and again go against this covenant, yet God does not abandon us.

Despite our subsequent actions, God's covenant remains, and that really is good news.

It's quite against the spirit of Vatican II to imply that a valid marriage (and we’re only referring to a marriage here) can be ended on the subsequent actions of one of the parties. Even if those actions are terrible. There's lots of good material available on the web about the Church's teachings on marriage, it's worth looking up.

It's been a good forty years since Vatican II., lets try and implement its teachings in a faithful and fulfilling way.

In my version of the Bible, Jesus tells the woman at the well that she is living with a man who is not her husband, and that she has been serially unfaithful. I see no note of approval of her status.