Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« Go Tell the Episcopalians... | Main | Planned Parenthood and the Cross »

November 12, 2005

Courting Divorce

In his great wedding poem Epithalamion, Edmund Spenser summons the whole cosmos to the church to be witnesses at the long-awaited moment when he and his bride shall "knit the knot that ever shall remain."  Or he does so for sixteen and a half out of 24 stanzas; then -- at sunset, at exactly the point in the seventeenth hour when the sun sets at the latitude of the village in Ireland where the wedding takes place -- he sends them home.  Naturally, he and Elizabeth have better things to do than talk with friends!  But even at that, they aren't entirely alone: the moon peeps in through the window, and Spenser invokes (as a literary device) various gods and goddesses to look with favor upon them, that their "timely seed" may bring forth a blessed progeny, "of Heavenly saints for to increase the count."

We have gotten lately the strange idea that marriage is a private party, with friends and relatives invited, no doubt, according to the wishes of bride and groom.  It requires a lot of backtracking through muddy assumptions to recover the old truth.  In marriage, and I am not speaking merely of Christian marriage, people celebrate the renewal of the race -- the generation to come, springing from the love of the young people before us, themselves the result of the marriages of the elder parents looking on, and of the immemorial dead.  The marriage means that life continues; and that terrible chasm between two sorts of human beings who need one another very much and so seldom understand why, that chasm between man and woman, once again is bridged.  The wound is healed, or at least soothed.  It is a living and speaking image of social and cosmic harmony.

So it was in the Renaissance; it is why most of Shakespeare's comedies end in marriage -- and Shakespeare entertained no illusions that most marriages would be happy, any more than he entertained any illusion that most people were good.  But he saw that without that marital union there could be no coherent society; call it the nuptial meaning of the body politic.  Surely we do not suppose that the heavenly wedding feast Christ describes is merely metaphorical?

Every divorce, then, tends to pull apart the fabric of our social relations.  The implicit message of divorce is that, for my own purposes, and they may be very good purposes (people always have good reasons for what they do), I may go my own way.  But the paradoxical truth is that divorce (I am not talking about physical separation, which may be temporary and circumstantial) purchases its liberation at the expense of the deserted spouse, the children, the brothers and sisters and cousins, the neighbor down the street, the people round the corner with the shaky marriage, and uncounted thousands of babies in diapers or people yet unborn, whose marriages will be made all the more difficult because of the precedent.  Now that divorce is a way of life in America, we have whole neighborhoods ravaged -- a father missing here, a sister missing there, incoherence generally, and distrust.  Just as even a bad marriage is a corruption of something inherently good -- and in its symbolism affirms the relations of trust that make real human society possible, not to mention making comprehensible the hopes of all Christians -- so even an apparently "good" or justified divorce is a soft and deceptive version of something inherently bad, which in its symbolism undermines the very idea of society, not to mention the mystery of the Trinity.

I wouldn't write these posts about divorce, except that my brothers and sisters in the faith have, I fear, gotten too comfortable with the tremendous evil that divorce is, in itself.  In a few days I'll be leaving what used to be a wonderful French-Canadian community; but divorce has spread like a plague through it, with fornication and cohabitation in its wake.  Each divorce makes the next more likely, until now we view it with a shrug, with most people divorcing over matters of petty dreary enslaving selfishness.  I beg my fellow Christians to reconsider how liberating is the old prohibition against divorce (and ask pardon from Orthodox readers; I am not clear about the Eastern teachings regarding the matter).

Posted by Anthony Esolen at 10:32 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834614c2b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Courting Divorce:

Comments

This all rings very true to me; as a child of a good and stable marriage, and a new wife trying to imitate the good example of my parents, I see that my experience is very different from almost everyone else I meet.

The problem I run into is: how do I treat divorced persons? One of my relatives is divorced and remarried. He says he's repented of the sin that caused his divorce, and I'll take him at his word. But he's still divorced, and there's still a huge gap in the family.

On the one hand, I'm glad he's being faithful to his new wife. On the other, I don't think he ever ought to have married her in the first place.

I'm always confused when faced with his new wife. I can never look at her without thinking of the wife he cast off. So, agreeing with you as I do about the horrors (and they are horrors, even if they're normal now) of divorce, how do I treat this man and the woman he ought never to have married?

Posted by: idiot ivan | Nov 12, 2005 1:04:27 PM

"how liberating is the old prohibition against divorce": How unmodern is this idea, Tony! Prohibition is liberating? Now *that* is an idea our culture rejects wholesale.

When I assign my students to write sonnets, they moan at the prohibitions -- "I don't want to write in iambic pentameter, or have to find rhymes," they complain; "I want complete freedom. I can't say what I want this way." But as they struggle within the form, they discover, finally, if they are honest with it, that prohibition is indeed liberating. They become more creative, they expand their thinking, the depth of their subject, etc., and turn out better work than any of their free verse.

And so it is with God's prohibitions, too. Only within them can we find the freedom He intended us for. And only when divorce is not an option will most of us exercise the hard work and creativity to find the solutions necessary to live well within a bond that unites two sinners.

It is well to note, by the way, that research shows that most people who call their marriages "unhappy" (even "very unhappy") have reversed that judgment five years later. Having to work problems out, rather than run away from them, usually makes us begin to resolve them.

Posted by: Beth | Nov 12, 2005 1:18:22 PM

"how do I treat divorced persons?"

Like Jesus did in John 4:7ff. Like a neighbor who has forgiveness.

Dr. Esolen, your words are both true and beautiful. We have a situation where one spouse "falls out of love" and feels this is enough for a divorce, when clearly to divorce for such a reason is outside the bounds of God's plan.

Yet, there's this part of me which feels concerned about prohibition which allows no measure of freedom. This topic made me think about Andrea Yates, the woman accused of killing her children in Texas. From all accounts her husband Russell Yates was emotionally and religiously abusive, exacerbating Andrea's deteriorating mental condition until she became convinced she was saving her kids from demons by killing them.

According to her family, Andrea was a very intelligent and kind woman but upon being married the abuse became so subtle and powerful she essentially fell far away from true spirituality into the very depths of hell.

Had someone been able to convince her to leave her husband, and find peace within a truly loving and spiritual community, in all likelihood she would not have killed her children, and would have found renewed light in her own life.

When one spouse has already broken the vow of marriage by being abusive or hateful can we allow for rare exceptions? I think of God's relationship with Israel. He never broke his covenant, but they were tossed off the land because they broke the covenant. No one could blame God for being false, even if the details of the arrangements ultimately changed throughout history. He broke the promises after the covenant was severed by Israel's persistent evil.

Or we could see this in the various kings of Israel, who were promised to have their lines extended, yet as they pursued evil they were cut off as was their family. God chose Saul until Saul chose Not-God, then he chose David from whom we are all blessed.

Clearly this is not a case of accepting divorce for any old reason, as Jesus addressed, but rather allowing for the fact that sometimes the marriage vow has already been severed, with divorce being a legal response to the unconfessed and unrepentant sin already taking place.

I worry about prohibitions with no allowances for any exception as such things seem to enforce an unnecessary evil at times. I also worry the Church is more concerned about the finality of a marriage while completely keeping away from intervening in the causes of a faulty marriage. An abusive husband should not partake in communion any more than a divorced one.

Certainly there is a place where marriages can be affirmed and frivolous divorces are extremely discouraged while still allowing for the rare and sad exception. Is this not part of having the freedom of the Spirit, being able to discern when something is wrong and right without having to resort to hard and fast laws?

I have a hard time saying a potential Andrea Yates who was divorced yet finding emotional recovery is better off than the Andrea Yates who stayed married and in her psychological suffering destroyed six lives.

Posted by: Patrick | Nov 12, 2005 2:32:24 PM

Well, apparently I have a hard time with my sentences, I meant, "I have a hard time saying a potential Andrea Yates is worse off..."

Posted by: Patrick | Nov 12, 2005 2:33:34 PM

For those who are struggling with this issue, please read Grace and Divorce by Dr. Les Carter. While at no time condoning frivolous divorces, or even divorces from difficult marriages, he does convincingly show the grace of Christ for those who are suffering in destructive marriages that may allow for a divorce.

I read once that God does not call us to leave difficult circumstances, but does not call us to stay in destructive ones.

Having been very judgmental about divorce myself for many years, I had to go through my own hell to understand this.

Posted by: Janet | Nov 12, 2005 3:16:32 PM

I'm pretty sure (but could well be wrong about this) that the Orthodox Church does, very rarely in extreme cases of abuse or repeated and flagrant adultery, grant Church divorces after which the divorced persons can remarry. This is not the same as am annulment, since it does not negate the fact that a marriage did exist, and does not de-legitimize children of the dissolved marriage. The second-marriage service is different from the first, and more penitential. I wish I could remember where I read this and back up the information with a reference (and reassure myself that this is true!), but in a house in which the books are now two deep on the shelves, my chances of that are pretty small. Does anyone know if this is true, or have I just developed false memories?
On the topic of how to treat divorced relatives and their second spouses: love them and treat them as you did before. They're still your relatives no matter what they do, and while you might feel superior and moral if you treated them differently, it is neither charitable, right, nor worth the family discord that will ensue to do so. (My paternal grandparents divorced and both remarried, one of my aunts is divorced, and one of my uncles is divorced and considering remarriage, so I do know what I'm talking about.)

Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 12, 2005 10:54:31 PM

Another question about divorced and remarried relatives. What should one do when they come to spend the night? Giving them a guest room with a double bed seems to condone their behaviour. What should you do if you believe that they are not truly married in the eyes of God?

Posted by: Librarian | Nov 13, 2005 12:21:54 PM

>This is not the same as am annulment, since it >does not negate the fact that a marriage did >exist, and does not de-legitimize children of >the dissolved marriage.
I don't know about the Orthodox, but I do know that in the Catholic Church a declaration of nullity does not 'de-legitimize' the children- although that misapprehension is unfortunately widespread.

Posted by: Donna Marie Lewis | Nov 13, 2005 2:28:05 PM

Just give them whatever accomodations you have. While this may be condoning their misdeeds,I don't see what else you can do without setting off a family war. ( Yes, I know this isn't the morally purest of options, but am inclined to favor keeping the peace in the family, and reserve judgement. Besides, we are told to worry about logs in our own eyes before the specks in our brothers', and to let one who is without sin cast the first stone. If the divorcé doesn't make an issue, don't be the one start it.)

Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 13, 2005 10:51:30 PM

Just give them whatever accomodations you have. While this may be condoning their misdeeds,I don't see what else you can do without setting off a family war. ( Yes, I know this isn't the morally purest of options, but am inclined to favor keeping the peace in the family, and reserve judgement. Besides, we are told to worry about logs in our own eyes before the specks in our brothers', and to let one who is without sin cast the first stone. If the divorcé doesn't make an issue, don't be the one start it.)
Donna Marie, thanks for the clarification on annulments! (and could someone qualify if I was right about divorce and Orthodoxy? Please?????? Because if I was wrong, someone needs to correct these mistaken notions!)

Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 13, 2005 10:55:06 PM

"On the topic of how to treat divorced relatives and their second spouses: love them and treat them as you did before."

That's kind of where I've landed. I don't see what else I can do; I'm not Jesus, and I don't know the state of their heart. I just wondered if there was something hypocritical in believing remarriage to be wrong, but not letting it make any difference in how I treat a remarried relative.

Posted by: idiot ivan | Nov 13, 2005 11:45:46 PM

"On the topic of how to treat divorced relatives and their second spouses: love them and treat them as you did before."

That's kind of where I've landed. I don't see what else I can do; I'm not Jesus, and I don't know the state of their heart. I just wondered if there was something hypocritical in believing remarriage to be wrong, but not letting it make any difference in how I treat a remarried relative.

Posted by: idiot ivan | Nov 13, 2005 11:46:41 PM

Wrt to Orthodox Christianity, the Greek Orthodox Church may well be different, but the OCA does not grant "church divorces." It recognizes civil divorces and permits remarriage. Some answers to questions here:

http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentmarriage.asp?SID=3

Posted by: Juli | Nov 14, 2005 11:10:46 AM

This link is shorter:
http://www.oca.org/QAindex.asp?SID=3

Scroll down or search for the term marriage.

From an answer to a question about remarrage:
Second or third marriages are performed by "economy" -- that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak.

Orthodox Christians aren't literalists, and here is one priest's understanding of what constitues adultery:
I have been a priest for nearly 25 years. I have seen quite a number of couples seek divorces. I have never seen a case that did not involve adultery -­ whether it be a case of giving oneself over to another person, or to another thing, such as alcohol, drugs, work, etc. One can surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by another person; one can also surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by power, wealth, addictions, careers, etc.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 14, 2005 11:16:21 AM

Another interesting discussion ...

Responding to Juli above: if that is the definition of "adultery," then Jesus's prohibition means nothing. Look, every bad marriage, without exception, involves the small steps of selfishness, coldness, unkindness, humiliation, stubbornness, disobedience, and deafness that will result, eventually, in that kind of "adultery," unless the people turn back and mend their ways. Jesus did not prohibit divorce except for cases of unhappiness, even profound unhappiness. The only kinds of people who ever marry are sinners, after all. Nor is there anything that a spouse can do to you that you have not done a thousand times over to Jesus Christ, who did not divorce you.

I return always to those words of Christ, which to my reading admit of no exceptions. And He certainly knew of plenty of rotten marriages.

It is strange, and I think dangerous, to talk about "literalism" when we are dealing with a New Testament moral command or proscription. It also tends to reduce the words of Jesus, to treat them with a kind of worldly all-knowingness; as if we were to say, "Well, that was how Jesus talked, and he did tend to exaggerate." The same sort of dilution is practiced by people who want to pretend that Jesus was only using a figure of speech when he talked about Hell. As somebody whose business it is to interpret literary texts, that's plain nonsense.

On Patrick's poignant re-telling of the Andrea Yates story: assuming that everything reported there is the case, I think she needed to get herself and the children out of there. Separation, not divorce. Blogger Beth has made the point before: hard cases make for bad law. The same sorts of hard cases are brought forth to justify abortion; then, before you know it, everybody's a hard case. Again I return to the words of Jesus. He did not insist that women and children remain in a situation of physical or moral danger; I don't insist on it, either. Quite the reverse.

As for what to do about divorced and remarried people, hmm. I think the problem is trickier than we want to admit. I have a few friends who are divorced and remarried. I don't like it, and I tell my kids so. But as for a family member, hmm, who wants to sleep in your house, or whose house you may want to visit, that seems a problem. In Brideshead Revisited, the very same problem comes up, and the oldest son informs the narrator that of course, nothing personal, the two adulterous persons would not be permitted to sleep at Brideshead together. I think what you do is pray, be kind, be cheerful, greet them, feed them, play skittles at family reunions, and don't stay in their homes and don't let them stay in yours. Otherwise the message comes through loud and clear to children and everybody else: this remarriage is not a big deal; there are absolutely no consequences.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 14, 2005 1:04:54 PM

I know I'll regret this, but ... so far everybody who has commented either on this post or on the previous has treated divorce as a woman's right, with the implicit assumption that men are most often to blame for the divorce. In America, now? From what I've seen, and I've seen a lot, that assumption would be laughable, were we not talking about the destruction of our very civilization. Feminists divorce lawyers will themselves now freely admit that most divorces have nothing to do with beatings or adultery (except that often the person SEEKING the divorce is the one committing the adultery).

Yet I am still hoping that somebody who knows more sociology and criminology than I do will give us statistics on the violence that divorce causes, directly and indirectly. My sense of it is that an especially unjust divorce can make a decent man violent, and a violent man murderous. That of course is no excuse for the violence: a murderer ought to be put away for life, at the least. But if we are talking like worldly sociologists (and not in the language of Jesus), then at least we ought to go deeper into the problem.

And then there are the hidden benefits of following the Lord's command implicitly, without hedging ... My own marriage has been far, far better for it, and I know of at least one other couple very dear to me who might now be divorced except for the merciful words of Jesus, who seeks to free us from our self-will. "Put it out of your head," I said. "It is not an option." And now their marriage is happy, and a source of blessing to others.

Many thanks to those whose words of faith here have stirred my heart.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 14, 2005 1:46:35 PM

I offered the comments about adultery in the context of several questions regarding the Orthodox Christian stance(s) on these questions. The Orthodox churches, of course, are not monolithic and generally do not tend to provide cut-and-dry answers to these questions - a penitential perspective goes hand in hand with economia.

It seems to me, though, that acknowledging that any betrayal of one's spouse is a sort of adultery is akin to acknowledging that idolatry involves much more than literally bowing to graven images. It makes the standard more demanding, not less so. In biblical terms, adultery in its literal sense is used again and again as a metaphor for the faithlessness of God's people.

At any rate, I offered the link by way of quoting an Orthodox response from an "official" source.

One other thing: although there is a more penitential marriage service for second (or third) marriages, it is not always used in such cases. I've attended Orthodox weddings in which one partner was divorced but the standard wedding service was used. That decision is considered a matter for pastoral judgment.

The same sort of dilution is practiced by people who want to pretend that Jesus was only using a figure of speech when he talked about Hell.

I haven't found that Orthodox priests tend to do that (*understatement*).

Posted by: Juli | Nov 14, 2005 1:55:07 PM

Ok, maybe I misread accepts civil divorce in some cases as something else! That's entirely possible, and as I said before, given the heaps of books in the house and their general disarray (hazard #1 of homeschooling!), I seriously doubt I can ever check on what I read again. Anyway, thank you for the deobfuscation!

Posted by: ladyluthien | Nov 14, 2005 2:13:13 PM

It's also quite possible, LL, that practices differ in the Greek Orthodox church. I've heard, for example, that if is received into the GO church and was married outside the church, the marriage must be (?) blessed in the GO church. That is not customary in the OCA. The OCA page I cited made some reference to Greek practices that correspond to marriage and divorce law in Greece, so that may be what you've encountered.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 14, 2005 2:38:05 PM

As a prospective convert to Orthodoxy I have to say I was shocked by the OCA priest's response that is cited above. In 25 years, Father John Matusiak has NEVER seen a case of divorce that did not fall under the Matthean exception? I find that incredible. Worse, he appears to be basing his exegesis on a loose translation of the passage - the word in Greek is porneia, which I understand is always a specifically sexual sin, so the generalization of "adultery" seems rather far fetched. It's some consolation that he presents this as a purely personal opinion, but it is still on the official website, and that is rather disturbing.

Posted by: Matthias | Nov 14, 2005 3:36:47 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of annulment law is that a declaration of annulment, instead of saying "We're sundering what God has joined," says "You were never joined in God." Not quite the same (also the reason that not every divorce can get an annulment).

We're still looking this from the wrong angle. Saying, "Sorry it sucks, but stick with it" is too little too late. Saying "Don't marry until..." is going to be much more effective is reducing the number of dovrces.

Posted by: Kate B. | Nov 14, 2005 4:43:01 PM

"Sorry it sucks, but stick with it" is too little too late.

I can't agree. "Sorry it sucks, but stick with it" is a reasonable paraphrase of Jesus's teaching, IMO.

Posted by: Matthias | Nov 14, 2005 5:44:27 PM

I don't think anyone here would deny that the best prevention for divorce is walking into marriage with maturity and preparation. Certainly many divorces I've witnessed would neve have happened if the couple had sought out good counsel -- because they wouldn't have gotten married in the first place!

But once marriage occurs, it's a different story. A wise man I know once replied to the question "But what if I married the wrong person?" by saying, "The moment you said 'I do,' that person you married became the right person. There is no other person for you till death parts you."

Now, if someone were forced into marriage at gunpoint, there might be some room for discussion. But I don't see any other reason. A couple were too young and immature? Well, now they will have to start growing up, won't they? And when they decide to do so, to stick it out, it's often amazing the rapidity of that growth.

And, by the way, it's unconscionable how little the church often seems to be involved both in preparing people for marriage and helping people to stay together when the inevitable rough spots come (as they will, even if you are mature and well-prepared!). That's something we all need to work at seeing changed.

On another note, Tony remarked on who ends marriages as a rule today, and he's right that it's most often women (60-70% of the time, last I heard). and almost never because of abuse by any definition; just general discontentment.

Tony, Lindsay Jackal, who posts sometimes at the CCC forum (Bill Mouser's), runs a list serve that might have information on the subject of violence precipitated by undesired divorce. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of it now; it's been a couple of years since I visited it. But Bill could perhaps point you to it. You can email me if that's not enough information. (I'm grading student essays on the problem of wasting time with modern technology, and must get off the computer now. :) )

Posted by: Beth | Nov 14, 2005 6:53:37 PM

Look, I'm not trying to say that divorce is a good thing--it isn't. But I'm right now dealing with a friend whose husband beats her, refuses to be a father to their kids, goes to topless bars, and locks himself in his room when she's out grocery shopping so he won't have to listen to the kids. He refuses to go to counseling because this is somehow all her problem. And I'm supposed to tell her, "Well, he doesn't love you like Christ loved the Church, but you should stick with him, because he'll suddenly decide he wants to grow and tackle this?" I don't think I can in good conscience say that. Other than, "Get yourself and the kids away from him (and I think keeping the kids away from him would require a divorce)" I don't know what to say. I'm not talking about a rough spot or discontent--I'm talking about danger: the only case, as far as I know, where divorce really makes sense.

It's all very well to say, "Jesus would've said 'Tough beans,'" but I don't see how that relieves the suffering. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them, because I'm at my wit's end on this one.

Posted by: Kate B. | Nov 15, 2005 8:34:25 AM

Aside from the direct danger to the children from their father's violence and neglect, your friend also needs to consider what sort of example she is giving them if she stays in a situation where she is being beaten. It's hard to phrase in a way that doesn't appear to blame the victim, but as a parent she is also responsible for giving her children a model of adult resourcefulness, strength, and self-respect. What image of married life does she want them to have? What kind of women and men does she want them to become? Their father clearly is beyond caring about any of these things, but she is not powerless to influence and shape them by showing them how courageous grown-ups can be when they have to be, especially when entrusted with children.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 15, 2005 9:16:28 AM

Kate B., how about a legal separation, followed by a civil divorce if necessary, but continuing to understand that a civil divorce does not end the marriage in the eyes of God, then striving to remain faithful and be ready for reconciliation if the husband turns his life around.

Posted by: Librarian | Nov 15, 2005 9:35:33 AM

A couple of more links to Orthodox Christian commentary on this subject:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

(If the long link doesn't work, go to
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org and follow the links to articles and then to liturgics, sort of an odd category for his subject.)

The author speaks to differences between the RC and Orthodox views of the purpose of marriage:

Here it becomes evident that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church differ in their understanding of the purpose of marriage. In orthodox theological thinking this is firstly the reciprocal love, the relationship and the help between the marriage partners with view to their completion in Christ. Only subsequently comes the restraining of their sexual passion and the reproduction of the human race. It is remarkable that in the New Testament we find no reference relating marriage to reproduction. In the Roman Catholic Church it is evident that the ultimate purpose of marriage is “procreation” or reproduction.

On divorce:

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony. The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.

The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.

It's a long article that also considers the very Orthodox concept of economia.

Here's another article that is mainly about Orthodox views on peace and war but uses the church's stance on marriage and divorce as analogous:

http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0103.html

Perhaps divorce provides a good example. According to “akrievia,” the norm is one marriage for life, and divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery. This is a direct word of the Lord. Nonetheless, the Orthodox Church blesses the remarriage of divorced persons in various circumstances as an act of mercy, knowing the frailties of our fallen nature and the difficult situations of life. Simultaneously, the norm is upheld and there is an accommodation to the realities of fallen world - a concept and practice that may seem contradictory to Western Christians. Similarly, peace is the norm and goal of Christian life for all. In its very nature, it embodies the gospel of the kingdom. War by nature is a manifestation of sin, and therefore, can never be “just.” War is to be avoided at all costs, and the peaceful resolution of human conflicts is to be pursued without limitation. However, there are occasions when the peaceful resolution of conflict is in fact impossible....


Orthodox Christians do indeed undertake warfare in such situations, but purely as a “necessary evil.” It is necessary because the innocent and good must be protected; it is evil because such protection involves the taking of human life, which by all accounts, is among the most terrible of crimes.

Posted by: Julie | Nov 15, 2005 9:43:59 AM

LadyLuthian & Janet (and for Juli as well) please know that Economia is NOT for anyone but the Bishops to decide, Priests do not engage in it, nor should they grant false hope to those seeking divorce. Additionally, there is a second-marriage service prescribed when BOTH parties are coming from divorces, not when only one is divorced. The service is in fact extremely penitential and there is no question that the mood is very different. Oftentimes only the witnesses, the couple and the priests are present. Juli, know that one priests' experience does not give you the perspective of Orthodoxy's path throughout the centuries.

Posted by: ProspectivePriestInshAllah | Nov 15, 2005 12:01:53 PM

Juli, know that one priests' experience does not give you the perspective of Orthodoxy's path throughout the centuries

I'm sure that's true. I wasn't citing a particular priest's experience or quoting from one person; I have limited experience of Orthodox weddings, having been to maybe eight. That's why I tried to find various sources on line, since I think we can agree that the Orthodox churches are far from monolithic today, let alone over the centuries.

As to economia being the province of the bishop only, I assume you mean in decisions about remarriage after divorce, since priests certainly apply that principle in offering pastoral advice on other matters (fasting, etc).

Posted by: Juli | Nov 16, 2005 7:25:40 AM

PPIS, thank you for the explanation/clarification. Apparently reading Byzantine history is not a very good way to try to understand Theology!

Tony, could you please try to be more accurate in your statements about what other people say? Not all posters have been speaking of divorce as a women's rights issue (reread my posts! I'm not even sure I ever used the word woman/women once!Although I could give a lecture about access to seperation or civil divorce is a vital neccesity for women in countries like Saudi Arabia, who have no legal right to leave their husbands, even if they and their children are abused...). Also, while your ideas for dealing with divorced and remarried relatives are probably very sound in theory, they really don't work in practice. It's much easier to tell people that they shouldn't allow their divorced and remarried parents to sleep in their homes than to actually do it. Try it for yourself! The question of how to treat children of remarried-after-divorce couples is also raised. Do you forbid your children to have sleepovers with friends/cousins whose parents are remarried after a divorce? Do you tell your children that friends and cousins born of such marriages are bastards? I'm sorry to play devil's advocate like this, but don't think you quite understand what dealing with divorce within your own family is like, and am inclined to think that this one falls under "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Posted by: luthien | Nov 16, 2005 9:18:49 AM

Juli--
I'm on the same page with you--giving her children a horrific example of married life does nothing to strengthen marriage in our culture.

Librarian--
You're right--a civil divorce has no effect on the marriage in the eyes of God. An annulment, however, is an understanding that, in the eyes of God, there was no marriage, only shacking up and fornicating. So why is annulment not a valid solution, here? Henry VIII didn't invent annulments; he just couldn't get one because his first marriage was valid. Some marriages are invalid, though. They should be, with help and education and marriage prep, rare. But they happen. We all know what real marriage is. The question is, how do we truthfully and compassionately deal with the exceptions to valid marriage that already exist?

Posted by: Kate B. | Nov 16, 2005 11:20:47 AM

I know that the bloggers here don't have monolithic opinions, but it would be interesting if Dr. Esolen and Mr. (or is it Rev.?) Moore could try to reconcile the former's posts on divorce and the latter's posts on Johnny Cash. I think we do have a troubling situation when a second spouse is clearly a moral help to the divorced and remarried individual. It would be awful to think of June Carter helping Johnny Cash save his soul from about a dozen other mortal sins, as she did, only to have them both go to Hell anyway on account of having been married to each other. (I'm not saying they actually did go to Hell - I certainly hope not - but by Dr. Esolen's standards - and, more importantly, Christ's standards - they did spend 30+ years in a mortally sinful situation.)

Posted by: James Kabala | Nov 17, 2005 9:55:16 AM

Dear Lady Luthien -- I was not thinking of your posts when I wrote that about "women's rights".

And believe me, I do have plenty of experience with the situations you are talking about. Practically, I have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to exposing my kids to the attitude that divorce is all right. That may admit what looks like arbitrariness: my standards would be more stringent with people we've known before the divorce and remarriage, for instance. No, I would not allow, and have not allowed, my daughter to sleep over at a house where the issue of divorce and remarriage is unavoidable. As for the children being "bastards," that is not the case, is it? The term is a legal fiction, and does not apply to the children of lawfully (I am speaking of the civil law) married people.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would say to a Christian man, "You should divorce your wife." My feelings go out to the poor woman who has married the thug. She should leave, with her children. But again I say that no spouse, no matter how wretched, can ever do to oneself what oneself has not done to Christ, many times over. That should cause us to pause a little bit before we sever "good people who get married" from "bad people who get married." In ourselves, we are all worthless and unprofitable servants -- those are Christ's words. I do not pretend that the spouse will "come around" -- that is not why we obey. We obey because we are commanded. Let God take care of the unmerited rewards.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 18, 2005 11:16:25 AM

I'm going to have to add, then, that I'm going to let God take care of meting out the deserved punishments, as well as the undeserved rewards. Maybe Rome is wrong, but Rome allows anullments (yes, I'm RC). My friend has been told in so many words by officials in our parish that she has grounds for one. When Christ met the woman at the well, if I remember correctly, he didn't demonstrate his power to her by saying "Go back to (one of) your husband(s)." And he didn't stone the adulteress--he who could have thrown the first stone. He left the doorway open--we're not told what those women chose before they died (unless we assume that the adulteress is Mary Magdalene).

In the main, I agree that divorce is wrong and most often pursued invalidly. But I am forced to say that there must be a way to deal with the exceptions.

Posted by: Kate B. | Nov 18, 2005 2:05:54 PM

Kate,

He said to her, "Go and sin no more."

No, he didn't tell her to go back to one of her earlier husbands. Under the only Law she knew, they were no longer her husbands -- it would have been entirely unreasonable for Jesus to have commanded that. But Christians have a new Law, and a new command regarding marriage. We witness to a higher truth.

Let's remember why, according to Jesus, Moses allowed for divorce: it was "because of the hardness of your hearts." There is no sense in Jesus' words that Moses allowed divorce because some women were unbearable (it was men who could procure a divorce; the women, if they wanted one, had to persuade the men to let them have one).

Most of us are not called to heroism in the life of faith. But some of us are. It won't do, to say that you will stand your ground under most circumstances, but will reserve the right to opt out if things become terribly difficult. That is not faith. It's one thing to fall; it's another to excuse the fall in advance, by saying that certain situations would warrant your fall. As I could never recommend taking into your army anyone who from beforehand would consider desertion, so I do not recommend that Christians marry (I am speaking as a Roman Catholic, I know) anyone for whom divorce is even an option.

Again I say that I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would advise a man to divorce his wife. Or perhaps I should say, that the worst circumstances are the arena in which we are called to give a witness to our faithfulness. I don't think that my neighbor -- whose wife was a drug addict, ran away with another man and bore him an illegitimate child, then was taken back by her husband, only to run off a second time -- is a wicked man for finally divorcing her and remarrying. Let God judge the man's heart. But he did the wrong thing. At the least, he was placed in a position for true godly witness, and he backed down. Please, no comments here on how nobody can know how difficult it is to remain faithful until we are presented with the gun to our heads. That is what exhortation and the daily commitment to virtue are for.

My grandmother was such a witness -- a martyr. She stayed with the drunk and loved him. Strange, that her commitment to remain with a bad husband could be construed as anything other than selflessness and the dogged performance of duty. I have heard some people speak as if even the love given by such a woman were pathological. I remind everyone that if such is the case, then Jesus Christ is the most pathological lover of them all.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 18, 2005 3:14:43 PM

I agree that no one should marry anyone who thinks beforehand that divorce is an option. I also think that no one should marry a drunk, an abuser, or someone who will refuse to respect them. But we are not always wise. Nor are we all called to martyrdom.

I remember reading years ago in a theology class a letter from, I think, St. Ignatius of Antioch (or it may have been Polycarp?) on not running toward the lions. Martyrdom is not a goal to be pursued, he said. In the like spirit, I cannot say to anyone who flees physical and sexual abuse "You were wrong; you should have stayed."

And you're right: Jesus is pathological. His wisdom is our foolishness. Lucky for me, he's also forgiving. If I'm wrong, I'll find out eventually.

Until then, I'm going to have to continue respectfully disagreeing with you.

Posted by: Kate B. | Nov 18, 2005 4:09:38 PM

I am not sure if the analogy to martyrdom fully works, because plenty of the martyrs did flee. St. Paul sneaked out of Damascus in a basket. St. Cyprian spent most of the Decian persecution in hiding. The persecutions in Elizabethan and Jacobean England were full of daring escapes and attempted escapes, many masterminded by St. Nicholas Owen. I don't think the Church has ever take the Socrates-esque position that a person in mortal danger for Christ's sake is required to not flee the danger(althought the famous "Quo Vadis?" legend does take an anti-fleeing position).

Posted by: James Kabala | Nov 18, 2005 8:16:10 PM

The analogy with the martyrs works this way: no one is required to run into martyrdom. No one is even encouraged to embrace physical persecution as if it were a positive good in itself. But we are all required to remain faithful in the face of persecution. Please remember that I have been trying to distinguish separation, which as I've said is open-ended, therefore possibly temporary, from divorce, especially divorce and remarriage. Also I may not have made it clear that it is witnessing that we are all called to, not the flagrant martyrdom of the great saints of the first centuries of the Church. But even so, our witness may involve us in a great deal of suffering. Jesus said no less. The burden is light because we are freed by it from the bonds of a law that cannot save -- and from the bonds of self-will. On the other hand, it is a cross.

On James's very nice suggestion that Dr. Moore and I come to a contretemps on the Cash-Carter marriage, I think it's a good idea. It would clarify the difference between principles that may not be compromised, and the workings of grace in a fallen world, with all of us acting by what light we are given. All expressions of human love, even those that are objectively disordered (as in homosexual relations), or that are objectively (though not necessarily subjectively) adulterous (as when a person who vows to remain faithful to one spouse until death, and who then divorces the spouse and marries another), partake in a fallen way of the glory of divine love, and can be, in the mercy of God, means of grace, in that God does bring good out of evil. But that does not mean that they are in themselves good choices, or that Christians can waffle on the principles. God will, I trust, judge Johnny Cash mercifully, according to the light he was given. But we are all of us adjured to pray for more light, not less, even when more light will make things difficult for us -- or even, for a time, unhappy. In any case no happiness can be true unless it is the happiness of submitting one's will entirely to God, without reservation.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 18, 2005 10:31:36 PM

Italics

Bold

Underline

A normal sentence.  There are two spaces between.    Three spaces before this.

∀x(φx → ψx)

∃x(φx → ψx)

LIST. 

  • Item 1
  • Item 2
  • Item 3

End

 

Posted by: nickerson | Nov 19, 2005 10:58:50 AM

Today's date is May 18, 2006. Local time 11:11 A.M. It's a nice day, a sunny day, a day the Lord has made. My comment, a question: is this site still active to date or am I commenting into oblivion?

Posted by: Orfin d'Vil | May 18, 2006 10:11:24 AM

kaylangan natin ng Divorce para maging legal ang paghihiwalay. Dahil sa panahon ngayon mahirap humanap ng pera para sa pambayad sa abogado para sa annullment at masyadong mahaba ang proseso non!!!!. can you imagine 7 years wow!

Posted by: jenina buhia | Sep 20, 2006 12:45:03 AM

HOw very uncharitable and judgmental of you all.How interesting that they're more men hardliners than women. Women generally have to give up more in a marriage than men do so when it becomes intolerable it weighs more on them.That's probably why more women ask for divorces than men.

Posted by: Lady Anon | Jul 15, 2007 5:01:33 AM

Post a comment