During Pope Francis' candid interview in the sky, he referred to the Orthodox custom of allowing for a second ecclesiastical marriage after divorce within strict parameters. He also suggested streamlining the current annulment process in this time of mercy.
The Orthodox theology of marriage that has ended is technically not about calling it divorce or invalid, but rather that it has come to a conclusion because of sin. In other words the sacrament has died through corruption.
Pastorally this is much more sensitive than a severe trial that we Catholics have for proving a marriage to be invalid from the very beginning, which causes much heartache for those who seek a Catholic annulment. Rather than investigate in a grueling way the attitudes of the couple prior to marriage, simply investigate what happened during and then decide if it is dead or not, rather than invalid or not.
We believe that the Blessed Sacrament ceases to be the Blessed Sacrament when its "accidents" become corrupted through age, mold or it ceases to appear as the accidents are meant to appear.
This is how the Orthodox describe a marriage that has ended: "While the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain both use the English term “ecclesiastical divorce” when referring to the use of “oikonomia” to permit a second marriage, Orthodox scholars and the websites of both archdiocese make clear that the Orthodox practice differs from both a Catholic annulment and a civil divorce.
Unlike an annulment, which declares that a union was invalid from the beginning, the Orthodox decree does not question the initial validity of a sacramental marriage and unlike a civil divorce it does not dissolve a marriage. Rather, the Orthodox describe it as a recognition that a marriage has ended because of the failure or sin of one or both spouses."
I think a compromise between the Orthodox theology of "divorce" and the Catholic Church's theology of annulments would assist us greatly in evangelization and receiving into the Church those whose marriages have ended and a new marriage has ensued.
74 comments:
Yes. I have a friend, great guy, whose wife divorced him. He didn't want to divorce and sought counseling which she refused. She insisted on the divorce. They have two kids. He said, since Georgia is a "no fault state" he had no choice. He was considering joining the Church but now thinks its not possible. Is he out of luck?
The Church, of course, may change its disciplines. Still, she seems to be taking a lot of her cues from the world these days . . . how about, in our rush to this progressive future we keep hearing about from everyone, as a work of mercy we eliminate all requirements except to participate in social justice? Collapse all Holy Days of Obligation to two a year (Christmas/Easter), automatic annulment on petition of one party who can provide evidence of a civil divorce, legal presumption of perfect contrition on the part of all Catholics and consequent elimination of any requirements for confession, presumption that the health benefits of the pill are so significant that they override any accompanying contraceptive intent, automatic extensions of plenary indulgences to everyone in the Church on January 1 every year, pa pro forma Lenten fast of denial of one piece of chocolate cake on Ash Wednesday (and maybe one more on Good Friday), and so forth.
While we're borrowing from the Orthodox, we could also borrow Consubstantiation from the Lutherans and "Once saved always saved" from the Calvinists.
Quickness, no he's not out of luck but he and his divorced wife must submit to the annulment procedure through our diocesan (or the diocese where he lives) tribunal (court). This can be off-putting for non-Catholics, but have him contact a priest to see the possiblities. One of the grounds for a Catholic annulment is the necessity for both to understand the Catholic meaning of marriage. If one isn't a Catholic, belongs to a Church that allows divorce and remarriage, one wonders how a Protestant or non-Catholic could understand the Catholic meaning of marriage at the time of their marriage which eventually ended.
A-5, I would love to borrow the once saved always saved Calvinistic theology if only it were true, but us Catholics so often despair of our salvation. I'd like to be relieved of this despair and anxiety and go boldly and arrogantly forward with my salvation and save the world too.
Father, why does qwikness's friend have to seek an annulment? Can he not just live chastely and still join the Church and receive Communion? Isn't it only if he wants to marry "again" that he will need the annulment?
Catholics need to understand that it isn't the civil divorce that's the problem, its the remarriage...
Marc, you are correct. The problem occurs when he wishes to remarry, which means for most men, as the majority of us aren't called to celibacy, will start dating again and looking for a spouse. Technically even the dating is a bit adulterous when one's marriage is still recognized by the Church and of course will lead to most men having sex as they are accustomed to it in their lives. So one would have to determine one's ability and even with the help of God's grace, chastity is a very fragile gift.
Of course, "once saved, always saved" is an over-simplification of Calvin's theology, which diligently struggled with issues of free will/predestination and God's love/sovereignty. Remembering that Calvin was raised Catholic and took his departure, theologically, from Augustine, we find the roots of "once saved, always saved" in Augustine. Calvin became a victim of his own logic and analysis, concluding that so-called "double predestination" and "irresistable grace/perseverance of the Saints" were the logical conclusions to God's sovereignty...not realizing that his, Calvin's, own reasoning is, in itself, limiting God's sovereignty. I'll go with Augustine...
Father,
I urge you to retract such positive speculation on this issue immediately.
I spent the evening before last with a close priest friend who's a member of an order of exorcists (http://www.dolorans.com/ - founded at the request of their bishop). We talked at length about this issue, and he was very firm in his contention through his experience with the possessed that the Enemy is delighted at this prospect.
Our system of annulment is nothing more than "Catholic divorce." Even Blessed John Paul urged its restriction. Despite the wishful thinking of the Orthodox, marriages don't "die." If there were no canonical impediments to it at the time of its validation, then it endures until death. Anything else is fantasy.
I can think of many, many marriages personally known to me which today are blissfully happy but which endured bitter periods that would've resulted in divorce had the couple been simply able to assume "death" of the marriage.
Personal story: My parents divorced when I when I was eleven. They both remarried, divorcing their new respective "spouses" after only a year. Realizing their terrible mistake, imagine their delight when they simply renewed their vows two years later with the ecstatic knowledge that their marriage had never actually dissolved.
To this day, they count their anniversary in real, not imagined years, from 1961, not 1975.
Had your "pastoral" solution been in place, well...
Marriages cannot die unless a spouse dies. How is that so hard to accept?
The Orthodox don't just grant ecclesiastical divorces at the drop off a hat. The process, as I understand it, is much more difficult and less likely to be "successful" than Catholic annulments. And the divorce is still viewed as a grave sin to be avoided at all costs.
And what does "pastoral" even mean? Is it an article of faith defined somewhere?
It's funny that the Bishop of Rome, who has lauded the Divine Liturgy and champions conciliatory, is now looking to the Orthodox on this issue of divorce.
I have an affinity for Orthodoxy, but it is offensive for the Pope to look for solutions outside his own Roman patrimony.
It's not like divorce hasn't been an issue in the Church before (ahem, Henry VIII) -- if the popes of the past had been willing to cave, there wouldn't be Anglicans.
If this Pope caves, there might not be Catholics.
Think about it.
Or maybe his goal is to prove the sedevacantists right? There is a sede chapel in my state: maybe I'll just go there. At least they don't use Bugnini's liturgy there.
We should do nothing to make divorce easier in any venue. Many couples who, if they were compelled to struggle a bit, might reconcile never do so because it is just too easy to quit. As a former protestant pastor, I counseled many couples that I thought might have stayed together were it not for the ease of getting a divorce. By the time most of them got to me, they were simply seeking "permission " through "divorce counseling," a term I refused to use even though it was in the pastoral care manual. Our culture is dying and one of the reasons is the cavalier stance we take towards marriage and child-bearing. This is a huge mistake.
Father, is there really no way that a divorced and remarried non-Catholic person can become a member of the Catholic Church--which is full of divorced and remarried Catholics--if, for whatever reason, his previous marriage(s) cannot be annulled. Of course, this condition is an impediment to reception of Holy Communion, as are many other conditions that numerous Catholics suffer from. But these conditions don't impede faithful attendance and spiritual participation at Mass and other personal devotions. Not so?
To adopt the "dead marriage" thinking of the Orthodox, the Catholic Church would have to change radically our theology of the Sacrament of Marriage.
We would also have to change our understanding of the covenant God established with His people at Sinai that was ratified/finalized in the "New Covenant" in the blood of Jesus.
Also, we would have to change our understanding of the Creation Accounts in which the man and woman are given to each other and the understanding that marriage is the one blessing not lost in the Flood.
I don't think we can adopt the Orthodox understanding and, at the same time, remain faithful to God's revelation about marriage.
Henry, in our RCIA, we make it clear to those who need an annulment that they can go through the "rite of acceptance" as candidates (if they are baptized) or cathecumens if they aren't and in either case their marriage is not recognized by the Church because of a prior bond. However, they may not be received into the full communion of the Church through baptism, confirmation and Holy Communion. As a candidate or cathecumen, a formal link to the Church is established, but they remain outside of the full communion of the Church and cannot receive the sacraments. But in an emergency life/death situation, they could receive the sacraments of penance, Anointing and Holy Communion and if they die a Catholic funeral.
Wow! Good post, Fr. Kavanaugh!
I'm eager to see how Gene will find modernism or equivocation in that post!
(Just joking, Gene and all sensitive anonymi.)
And let's not forget that the Orthodox idea of economia is at play here. This is completely absent from Catholic legalistic theology, for better or for worse. So, you're absolutely right that this just doesn't fit with Catholic theology.
It seems the response to a dead marriage is confession. It resurrects our very soul, why not a marriage? I think it is our culture's refusal to accept responsibility that it the root of this discussion. I have heard that marriages suffer when people won't budge on conflicts or put their personal happiness above the joined happiness of their spouse. Isn't that one of our reflections before confession? I think we already have the tools we need.
Father, I believe my question is the extent to which divorced and remarried non-Catholics can acquire status as Catholics without going through fully the "sacraments of initiation", thereafter regarding themselves as Catholics, even though not "in full communion" in the sense of able to receive Holy Communion.
Although I'm not ordinarily real big on "pastoral" stuff, it does seen unfair on its face, for non-Catholics who come to accept the Catholic faith, to not be open to at least the same Catholic identity as so many millions of divorced and remarried Catholics living in a state of sin. Even a human sinner can be faithful in belief, however frail in practice, and perhaps need even more the solace and support of Catholic identity and devotion that is open to so many already Catholic sinners with the same marital status. Indeed, in this status the formerly non-Catholic divorced but remarried spouses, being armed with a sense of Catholic identity and worship at Mass without communion, perhaps saying the Rosary or Divine Office together, and may at some point decide to become chaste within marriage, and thence accessible to confession and communion. Seriously, who are we to judge them in advance?
Or is my question redundant, in that going through the rite of acceptance without confirmation and Holy Communion already provides the indicated status and Catholic identity?
You have departed from the Catholic Faith in posting this.
Henry, as you pointed out, such people can enter the Church and receive Communion, but they must commit to living chastely with their supposed second spouse and avoid giving scandal.
Most people are either unwilling or unable to do this in our times. I imagine it would be very difficult.
With respect to our recent anonymous poster, I'm usually pretty keen to point out when someone has departed from the faith. I disagree in this instance. Father McDonald is simply discussing pastoral possibilities here. It's a discussion worth having since it has been the approved Orthodox practice for a long time.
One should not forget that there is an internal forum solution (under the seal of confession) which technically can only be used once the external forum (annulment procedure) is exhausted. In other words it cannot be used without going through the annulment procedure first and can only be used from my understanding when the annulment procedure comes to a conclusion because of a lack of evidence, meaning, that there are clear grounds for an annulment, but to evidence to prove it, such as witnesses being dead, not cooperating,etc. I don't believe it can be used if after the annulment procedure a decision in the negative is given when sufficient evidence is presented and verified.
In terms of "sexless" marriage, these are more common than some would believe and yes, a couple living as "brother and sister" although I prefer "without sex" may be received into the Church and divorced and remarried Catholics also.
Marc - You are keen to point out when, in your judgment, you think someone has departed from the faith.
An important point . . .
True enough, Fr. K., true enough.
Perhaps instead of singling me out here, when I was actually being polite, you could have said nothing. And we were just starting to get along...Prudence.
Obviously, some here think the Orthodox solution (how odd) is not Catholic and would not be a possibility. One thinks it is the work of the devil. I would then propose that we keep the annulment system we have for Roman Catholics who were properly prepared for marriage and had a Catholic wedding and then their marriage ended in divorce.
But for people who are Protestant and for whom marriage is not considered one of the sacraments that there be a very streamlined approach to them, similar to what we ask Catholic go through who do not get married in the Church, what is commonly called "lack of Catholic form of marriage."
As well, if the denomination these people belong to, allows for divorce and remarriage in the Church, that in and of itself should be grounds for an annulment since this is the belief of the person's church, despite any vows to the contrary.
Simply prove that non-Catholic did not have a Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and all that this means and when we prove that, grant the annulment. Should take about one month to do.
I wonder, though, are Protestant marriages recognized as valid in the first place? If the theology behind marriage is different at First Protestant Chuch Up the Hill, why is it considered valid? Why isn't the same view regarding the other sacraments not the same for marriage?
If not valid, where does it become necessary to seek an annulment?
FH, yes, that is the case. The Catholic Church presumes that the marriages of protestants, if there is no previous bond or impediment are valid and sacramental. These are viewed as Catholic marriages are viewed. That's why a Protestant who wants to become Catholic has to go through the complete Catholic annulment process. But it can get even worse. You might have a Protestant who herself had no previous marriage who marries a Protestant who has had one. The wife wants to become Catholic, the husband (with the previous marriage) doesn't. For her to become Catholic, the Catholic Church insists that her spouse who has no desire to become Catholic must go through the annulment procedure, which involves obviously his first wife.
So you see how this complicates the new evangelization.
That is why I propose a streamline procedure for Protestants with the primary intent of discovering if they believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Sacrament of Marriage and to take seriously what their denomination's practice is.
Marriages between baptized persons are presumed valid. The particular theology of their sect doesn't make a difference for that presumption. It might affect the ultimate determination of validity if the marriage is ever questioned, though.
Note that the Catholic idea of the partners as the officiant of the Sacrament is different than the Orthodox who hold the priest is the officiant. Also, I doubt Orthodox theology would hold marriages outside the Orthodox Church were "valid" since there are no Sacraments outside the Church... I haven't explored this question thoroughly, though.
Marc, my solution for a streamlined annulment procedure based upon Catholic understanding of marriage respects your insight. The presumption is that it is a valid marriage until proven otherwise by the court precedure in the Church.
Also, in our Eastern Rite part of the Church the Sacrament of Marriage must be blessed by the priest for validity as in the Orthodox, although the Eastern Rite doesn't allow for the "death of marriage" as the Orthodox do.
I would say that the pope could legislate that only marriage officiated by a validly ordained priest (and thus this would include the Orthodox and any other branch of Christianity that has a valid priesthood) must go through a full-blown annulment procedure. For all others, one only need prove that their minister wasn't a valid priest.
If ALL those marriages performed by other than a validly ordained priest are invalid, are you not saying that all the couples involved are, therefore, fornicating and, therefore, going to hell?
We look on any marriage as a valid marriage until there is evidence to the contrary. If we start looking on them as invalid, what does that say about the couples enjoying the benefits of connubial bliss?
Marc, my question was not whether such a person can enter the Catholic Church and receive Communion. Rather, it is whether he can (in some sense or other) enter the Church and not receive Communion.
Of course, the Church is full of Catholics who cannot or should not receive Communion. But are non-Catholics who come to accept Catholic belief excluded from any Catholic status because of irregular marital (or other) situations which they may not control unilaterally, realizing of course that reception of Holy Communion must await regularization?
I'm only speaking of the sacramental aspect.Keep in mind that a baptized Catholic with a dispensation may marry an unbaptized person. We use a different form for these weddings that only calls their marriage a holy bond, not a sacrament. These marriages can be dissolved by the Church, no need for an annulment.
So the first marriage of Christians who do not have a valid priesthood would be "valid" as a bond, but not as a sacrament, and thus the Catholic Church could dissolve the bond through a streamlined dissolution court procedure.
Yes, Henry, they can by being a part of the RCIA and going through the Rite of Welcome aka, Rite of Acceptance. However, if they have a marriage case, they cannot go through the Rite of Election and the Easter Vigil initiation sacraments.
But once they go through the rite of welcome, they achieve a canonical status with the Church although they cannot receive Holy Communion or the other sacraments, except in an life/death emergency.
Thanks, Fr. McDonald, that answers my question.
Sorry I misunderstood your question, Henry. It is a good one.
Fr. K, if your questions are directed at me, I don't know the answer! We have reached the limit of my knowledge on this. Maybe I'll have time to look into it tonight.
"So the first marriage of Christians who do not have a valid priesthood would be "valid" as a bond, but not as a sacrament, and thus the Catholic Church could dissolve the bond through a streamlined dissolution court procedure."
What, Father? Do you mean a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian? Because, as you say in other parts, marriages between two Christians are perfectly valid in a sacramental sense.
One of the issues that comes up when discussing annulments is the wrongful belief and
misconception among some that the children of such annulled mariages are "illegitimate"
This of course is not true at all.
Think of a structure that has some defect in it's construction that can't be
repaired and so it then has to be demolished. That the building no longer stands does
not take away that for a certain period of time it did exist and did stand.
George, that sounds an awful lot like a divorce.
It is a little off the point that this excellent thread has developed, but -
"Pastoral" means acting towards a person intending to do what will help that person to get to Heaven. It is perhaps not my business to define a virtue or attitude that pertains only to priests and bishops (and perhaps in some sense to parents), but I was a little bit stirred to response by the question put by another contributor.
- Ancil Payne
Annulments seem to generate confusion. I've never heard it said or thought by anyone that the
children of a marriage that ends in divorce are "illegitimate". Of course if you
are taking the position that all marriages that end do so in divorce and that an annullment is just
a term of rationalization or obfuscation well I don't agree with that position. The operative term is "defect". That defect can be for any number of reasons but with a marriage that is valid in the eyes of the Church there is no defect.
Fr. McDonald,
You said "Technically even the dating is a bit adulterous when one's marriage is still recognized by the Church". I would rephrase that to say "Dating is adultery (a grave sin) when one's marriage is still recognized by the church.
The earlier poster who said "divorce isn't the issue it is annulments" has been misled. The Catechism tells us that "Divorce is a grave offense" (2384). That means it satisfies the first of the three criteria to be a mortal sin. (the others are full knowledge and complete consent [see CCC 1857]--which are also very likely in a divorce situation). Therefore, a person who divorces their spouse is likely living in mortal sin EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT DATING OR REMARRIED (but not the other spouse unless they also consented to the divorce). The Catechism tells us that a person who dies in mortal sin goes to hell immediately after death (1035).
Catholic church law gives a spouse the opportunity to separate with permission (c. 1151-1155) but NEVER to divorce except to protect certain legal issues (sorry--can't find the canon reference right now) but that only applies in very rare cases such as a person marrying a prince for his money.
Another person here mentioned confession as a solution. However, penance requires contrition (CCC 1451) and a true desire to resolve the sin (in this case, reconciliation with their spouse).
This is what Catholic spouses who file for an annulment should be told--the TRUE teaching of the Catholic Church. Marriage is until death. Yes, there are cases where an annulment is valid but these SHOULD be extremely rare. Today's tribunals do not understand (or choose to ignore) church law on this topic. They are "canon lawyers" but they ignore the heart of the law due to a false compassion for the petitioner who cries on their desk blotter! It is an epidemic in our tribunals and innocent men, women and children (and our society) are suffering.
We need clarification of Canon Law--especially 1095 which is being applied in horrendous ways. We also need bishops to reprimand tribunal judges who ignore the (several) canons that tell them to "use pastoral means" to reconcile spouses. Many spouses can be reconciled this way! We also need priests to teach the TRUTH from the pulpit instead of saying what they think people want to hear for fear of offending them. The salvation of their soul is certainly more important than being "nice".
This has been going on for decades and perhaps only our Holy Father can stop it now. I recently wrote him a letter asking him to take action. It will be interesting to read his response.
We can not just make up the Catholic faith on our own. We MUST follow the teaching of the church or else it is "every man for himself". We, as individuals, were not given the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave them to Peter--our first pope. Those keys have been past down through the centuries in succession. They have never been relinquished to individuals but remain in the hands of the Magisterium.
Thank God, because if I had to interpret scripture things would get very ugly very quickly! It is a massive case of pride to think that I have more intelligence than 2,000 years of very holy men and women!!!
This post is not pointed at you, Father. Just trying to educate those who may read it.
Praise Jesus for His compassion AND HIS CROSS! Praise God for His mercy AND HIS JUSTICE!! Praise the Holy Spirit for His joy AND HIS PRICK OF OUR CONSCIENCE!!!
There may be loveless marriages, Fr. McDonald, but there is no such thing as a dead marriage. When sacramental grace is given and accepted, love can be brought back again. Marriages do not run on autopilot. If spouses were not willing to live out a sacrificial love in their first marriage, why would they do it in a second marriage? Yet, they need to be encouraged to stay the course. They need live out their vows to their spouse and to God for the good their children and society. If you want to be pastoral, then as priests, you are the first line of defense and should be encouraging forgiveness and reconciliation rather than hope annulments become easier to get. Reminding spouses they will likely be condemned to hell if they divorce for no good reason—it is a mortal sin to divorce—is the best way to evangelize. To say easier annulments can be evangelical is strange.
The granting of annulments has been out of control for over four decades and it is about time the Church put a lid on it. It is not pastoral when it is usually against one spouse who never wanted a forced divorce and then an equally forced annulment, which in many cases it is. It is not pastoral, when the children involved are forced to see their parent/s re-marry. Legitimacy or illegitimacy is meaningless when children see one—or both—parents run into the arms of those who are not their parents. The focus never is on the children, but on the selfish desires of their parents who think nothing of breaking the vows they made to each other and to God.
The Pope mentioned the Orthodox way of mercy, but I highly doubt he is willing to change the Catholic doctrine of marriage indissolubility to suit the desires of many divorcees or add respectability to their situations.
Here’s is what Pope John Paul II he said in his 1987 address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota—the highest Church marriage tribunal--as a correction to the local tribunals who grant far too many annulments. Marriages do not die.
...[T]he breakdown of a marriage union is never in itself proof of such incapacity on the part of the contracting parties. They may have neglected or used badly the means, both natural and supernatural, at their disposal; or they may have failed to accept the inevitable limitations and burdens of married life, either because of blocks of an unconscious nature or because of slight pathological disturbances which leave substantially intact human freedom, or finally because of failures of a moral order.
--ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
Thurday, 5 February 1987
Marriage/divorce involve the only sacrament that affects two discrete parties whose interests may conflict. This is the whole, or at least the major, reason for all the legalism. Pleasant or not, it serves the purpose of protecting the interests of the spouses (whether putative or actual).
Mess with this model too much, and you risk redefining the res of the sacrament itself.
And, as I tried to show in my initial comment, given the rate of change in the world, and the degree to which its practices depart from the understandings of Catholicism, the world is the _last_ place we should look to for lessons on how to change even things that _can_ be changed, much less the meaning of a sacrament.
In other words, just because the divorce rate has skyrocketed since VII is no reason at all to try to make the process of annulment easier, much less rethink the fundamentals of the Catholic sacrament of marriage. In fact, there's a good argument that in this environment, annulment should be made more difficult, at least for those who married as Catholics, to counteract the pagan idea of serial polygamy that has crept into the secular understanding of marriage.
I do think that for Protestants who wish to enter the Church, the fact that most of them don't understand marriage as sacramental (certainly not in the Catholic sense), that in itself is grounds for annulment, and thus maybe a judicious degree of streamlining would be OK there.
An aside: Gene, I spend a fair amount of time reminding people that predestination, vis-a-vise St Augustine, is actually a Catholic doctrine.
Is the Church today involved in any more shameful hypocrisy than the wholesale "annulment mill" charade?
In which for the typical price of $500 or so one gets an official declaration--for the sake of expediency and rejuvenated sexual gratification with a new partner-- that what plainly was and is a marriage under God was never a marriage at all, so he can "go and continue to sin" but nevertheless enjoy the religious privileges of one who is obeying the ten commandments, while continuing to flout one of them.
Not to say that no annulments are valid, but doesn't virtually everyone know of ones that are fraudulent shams?
Fascinating discussion this, and very much needed! Perhaps a bit off the stated point, but I think relevant is a recent interview with Cardinal Burke: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii
Are we trying too hard to relate to the worldly in all of us rather than concentrating on eternal Truths?
I share Good Fr. McDonald's concerns about the annulment process and how it can impact those adults wishing to enter the Church through the RCIA.
The process is very demanding, requiring applicants to re-live, in a sense, very painful times in their lives. It can also involve making contact with a former spouse who may have been abusive, physically or otherwise, and I can understand why some are reluctant to do so.
I don't think we can alter the theology of Marriage, though, as Fr. McDonald suggests. I don't know what the solution is, but we can pray that one be found.
As to whether or not annulments "should" be rare, I would say they should be rare IF the IMPEDIMENTS that render marriage consent null are, themselves, rare. Cholera is rare, but not when the bacteria, Vibrio cholera, is prevalent. The impediments of Lack of sufficient use of reason, Lack of due discretion, Lack of due competence, Crime, Simulation, etc., are FAR more prevalent in today's western societies than, say, 75 or 100 years ago. Consequently, it should not be surprising that the number of annulments granted has risen significantly.
mjohns - I am not sure that your ref to CCC 2384 describes divorce as "grave matter" as would pertain to the three conditions for mortal sin. 2384 says " Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law."
A divorced person is NOT excommunicated. They are NOT forbidden to receive communion as are those who have committed mortal sin. (See http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/
Fr. McDonald, yesterday, August 7, 2013, at 1:29 p.m. you wrote about the internal forum after the external forum procedure is exhausted. Are you speaking of a divorced/remarried person who cannot get a declaration of nullity and believes in conscience that the prior marriage was invalid?
If so, Pope John Paul II said on February 10, 1995, to the Rota that individual priests cannot declare marriages null in conscience on their own in the way I understand you. Here is the relevant quote:
"An action deviating from the objective norm or law is thus morally reprehensible and must be considered as such: while it is true that man must act in conformity with the judgment of his own conscience, it is equally true that the judgment of conscience cannot claim to establish the law; it can only recognize it and make it its own."
It's bad enough that tribunals decide cases so generously that even not helping with the housework has become acceptable evidence (I can prove this), but for individual priests to give the divorced/remarried permission to approach the Blessed Sacrament is beyond pastoral; it's welcoming penitents into the gates of perdition.
Does a Sacrament belong to us? Or are we really charged with it and responsible for its proper use? If I understand correctly, Christ explained that marriage is for earth. That is a bit of a struggle for someone like me who is deeply dedicated to his spouse. When I fell in love with the woman who became my wife, I came to understand love in a way I had not understood it before. My gratitude to God for this gift broke open my understanding of any boundary of Love. I was compelled to love everyone with all my heart, joyously, as a manifestation of the love I experienced for my wife and as a gift to God for this blessing. I realised that was a taste of the love I could have for God in Three Persons. In that state I realised that I could have that love for anyone, man or woman, or any of God's creations in the world. For my wife I reserved certain manifestations of this Love, partly out of respect for her, partly out of respect for Natural Law, and mostly out of respect for the Sacrament of Marriage as a charge I was given in this world.
I do not mean this to question any motive of our blog host, but I sense that we are trying to reconcile the Sacrament of Marriage with the state of man rather than elevate man to understand and properly care for marriage. The effort to know the actual mindset of the persons in a marriage is good thing, I think, in this regard. People often make commitments they do not truly understand.
Christ fed the 5000 with loaves of bread and fish blessed by his hand. I do not understand that to be communion in any sense because He did not say they were His Body or Blood. But we have to admit it did feed the masses. At the last supper he had a far smaller group and he fed that smaller group the blessed bread and wine made His Body and Blood. I have no doubt God has blessed people with marriage outside the Church, but I am not sure they are the same as our Sacrament. I think that our complex annulment process is our attempt to equivocate the two kinds of marriage when they probably are not the same. We respect the marriage outside the Church because of *our* requirement to follow God's Law, but not because they are the same in the eyes of God or His church.
I think it is safe to say that we do not deserve Holy Communion. Yet we contort ourselves to ensure every 'meets' Christ' as if it was owed to them. The travesty in the Papal Mass in Rio shows this mindset. I also think that we are driven to get everyone to communion, to have 'evangelization', when we mean more Church members, as if God is holding some sort of contest in this world. As much I desire Holy Communion, and pray that it is understood and accepted by others, it is not available to everyone for reasons that are beyond my understanding; but within my responsibility to follow. If I expect that, after a person dies, God will bestow Grace on the devout yet invincibly ignorant Buddhist or Moslem, then I can expect no less for the divorcee who has an obstacle in this world to full communion. I wonder if it is a desecration for me to contrive ways of getting a wafer in the moth of everyone I know when I know what that wafer truly is, and it is not a loaf or fish for their body alone.
To give the Church of England its due, it does not admit of annulments easily and thinks the Catholic Church is too liberal in this regard. In the 1970s Catholics (especially in the USA)could get an annulment as easily as they could get a "quickie" divorce; it was JP II who clamped down on this. I sincerely hope Pope Francis is not trying to go back to the last decade of Paul VI's reign, Satan's smoke and all.
Pater,
You said . . . "I am not sure that your ref to CCC 2384 describes divorce as "grave matter" as would pertain to the three conditions for mortal sin."
Then what does the word "grave" mean? It is my understanding that whenever the Catechism uses the word "grave" it is speaking about something that meets the first condition of mortal sin. See CCC 1857 which says "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." So, grave "equals" mortal when the other two conditions are met.
I agree that a divorced person is not excommunicated whether they consented to the divorce or not. They are just like any other person who lives in mortal sin (for example, someone who has committed murder with full knowledge and full consent). However, they are not allowed to take communion until the mortal sin has been removed through a VALID Sacrament of Penance. They are encouraged to participate in Mass and follow the Christian life.
A person who divorced their spouse must confess and be willing to reconcile. If their spouse refuses then they are free to receive communion because the mortal sin no longer exists but they must remain willing to reconcile in the event that their spouse eventually decides to reconcile.
I am sorry if this seems harsh but it is the true teaching of the Catholic Church. People forget about the Cross of Christ. We are all called to carry it and some crosses are heavier than others. Just because someone is asked to carry a very burdensome cross does not mean we can change the truth so lighten the load. We are called to compassion, but not false compassion and not by ignoring (or twisting the definition of) justice. Folks must remember the truly short time we are on Earth in comparison to eternity.
It should be noted that a person who is divorced "through no fault of their own" (who did not want or consent to the civil divorce) has not committed a sin. In our no-fault divorce society the person has no choice and is therefore not held accountable for the grave sin of divorce. Obviously, if they consented to the divorce then they are guilty also.
mjohns - A divorced person IS free to receive communion, whether that person has been to confession or not, as long as no mortal sin has been committed.
From the USCCB Website ForYourMarriage.org: "Some people believe that a Catholic who divorces is excommunicated. Not true! Divorced persons are full members of the Church and are encouraged to participate in its activities. The U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults says: “When divorce is the only possible recourse, the Church offers her support to those involved and encourages them to remain close to the Lord through frequent reception of the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”
A divorced person is not, by divorcing, prohibited from receiving communion.
The Catechism uses the word GRAVE in a number of ways: 2354 "It does GRAVE injury to the dignity of its participants..." 2265: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a GRAVE duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others...." 1483: "In case of GRAVE necessity recourse may be had to a communal celebration of reconciliation with general confession and general absolution...."
No, it is not correct to say that "...whenever the Catechism uses the word "grave" it is speaking about something that meets the first condition of mortal sin."
Form the website of the Diocese of Peoria: "Does the Church consider divorce a sin?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
• "The separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond, can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense" (#2383).
Also: "May a divorced person receive the sacraments and be involved in parish life?
A divorced Catholic who is neither remarried nor cohabiting is free to receive the sacraments and to be involved in life of the parish. In many cases such individuals can help their fellow parishioners who may be going through or have gone through the pain of marital separation or divorce."
Father Kavenaugh, You comments here are superb. Your comments have made this a especially fruitful discussion. However, for you and I would like to add some things from the Byzantine side of things.
First, the best book on the Byzantine positon is the late Melkite Archbishop Joseph Raya's book "Crowning." (Yes, I know his comments on contraception are wrong, but taking the position of St. Photious of Constantinople, we cannot perfection in our saints (he said this of St. Augustine. In this book Raya notes that two points we need to take into account to understand the Orthodox position - one, by way of background, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics consider the model Holy Family to be Joachim, Anna, and Mary because of the fact that Joachim and Anna had sexual intercourse like normal families do. Two, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics frown on and strongly discourage remarriage after the death of a spouse.
Second, the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own tribunals. In fact, the canons of the Eastern and Latin Churches on marriage and processes to investigate the nullity of marriage are often identical. There are exceptions, of course. Catholic Churches of the East have one impediment to marriage that does not exist in the Latin Church --- spiritual relationship.
Third, the canonical form of marriage is different in the Latin Church, the two spouses marry each other (The spouses give the sacrament to each other), but for Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox they are married by the priest. (P.I. and P.MAC will understand the distinction I am making)
Fourth,let us hear what Joseph Ratzinger said in 1972 (Originally published in German: "Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung" in Ehe und Ehescheidung: Diskussion unter Christen, Kösel-Verlag, München, 1972, pp. 35-56.) on this matter: "First of all, against a misunderstanding that is becoming ever more wide-spread, what is fundamentally common to both structures must be here underlined. Even the eastern Churches' very extensive practice of divorce retains the structure of the position of Origen-Basil. That is to say, also for them there can be no valid sacramental marriage while the first spouses are alive; the second marriage does not become a properly ecclesial marriage.
It remains a tolerated marriage, and the reception of the sacraments is permitted by way of tolerance (today termed economy)."
Here is a better article on marriage in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Plus, the website is superb. “No Wedding Vows and the Theology of Marriage” - find this article at http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/
If some how you end up at the parish website, just go to the Raven icon on the left.
Now I am on a roll, but must go home for dinner, P.I. and P.Mac have really got me going -- check this article out:http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.fr/2013/07/signs-of-hope-in-orthodox-catholic.html
In the article states that we Latins need to move from a legalistic approach to a sacramental one. In the east, they use the term "mystery" for sacrament. I suggest to recover the true understanding of marriage we need to rediscover what the mystery of fatherhood is and the mystery of motherhood. Before my head explodes, the exploration would include ministerial priesthood, marriage and consecrated virginity.
I also respectfully P.I. and P.Mac might like this article
Father,
I am saddened that you often refer to a marriage as "ending in divorce."
please, I pray, stop using those terms. It only spreads the lie from the father of all lies that a divorce has the power to separate something that God Himself joins.
FCG
Pater,
Please, I pray, do not spread the lie leads people to believe that divorce is not a grave sin that leads souls to Hell. God plainly stated He hates Divorce (Malachi 2:16.) Our Blessed Lord plainly warned us not to separate what God joins (Matthew 19:6).
Our Catechism plainly lists "divorce" in a bolded heading after "adultery" under "offenses against the dignity of marriage." Are you really trying to say that adultery is a grave sin but divorce isn't?
Our Catechism also calls divorce a "grave offense against the natural law" and "immoral." Our Catechsim states that divorce "introduces disorder into the family and society" and "traumatizes children" and "brings grave harm to the abandoned spouse" and "does injury to the covenant of salvation."
What other sin does our Catechism speak so negatively about but then claim isn't really a grave sin?
How can you abandon your earthly spouse without abandoning your Heavenly Spouse?
True, some are victims of the civil divorce. As long as they do not claim in their hearts that the marriage is somehow over, they are "innocent victims" and have "not contravened the moral law." They are NOT guilty of the "grave offense" of divorce.
I will pray that the scales fall from your eyes so that you may see the evil that divorce truly is and stop misleading souls onto a path that leads to Hell.
FCG
When I was in my mind and in my beliefs "becoming" Catholic, which was before the Second Vatican Council(I was not actually received into the Catholic Church until midway in the Council, but things were still largely "preconciliar - e.g., I was required to make the Tridentine Profession of Faith, thank God), I believe that spiritual relationship was an impediment to marriage. Thus in recent years I was shocked to find fiances and fiancées being sponsors for their intended spouses who were becoming Catholic. The purpose of this posting is to ask, What was the reason for this change? (I still find it going very much against the grain.)
- Ancil Payne
Marriages don't end until one party dies. The news media is making something out of nothing.
It is scandalous that divorce is treated as morally neutral in virtually any printed material from U.S. Catholic sources. In the U.S. the 'institutional Catholic Church" disregards the Canon Law 104, and 1692 that explain that no Catholic can even file for divorce with permission from one's bishop. No one is supposed to seek a civil decree (for divorce or separation) contrary to divine law, but the Catholic leaders are silent about this protection agains immoral separation. While it is possible that some marriages are invalid, the Popes for 30 years have been cautioning the tribunals in the English-speaking world to stop issuing nearly-automatic annulments for psychological reasons.
I'm part of a network of Catholics who remain faithful to our abandoning spouses and we help each other use canon law to defend our marriages against tribunal staff people that appear to disregard our rights to defend our marriages.
This has been a most educational, saddening, and encouraging thread for me. I have learned a lot that I did not know; however, I am saddened at what we have come to and the uphill battle we are going to have to fight to restore the sanctity of marriage. I am encouraged that so many of you still hold the traditional Catholic view of marriage and are adamant about it.
This has indeed been a very educational thread.
I am sorry if I am about to be too “legalistic” but I wonder if we may be missing an important point in invoking the CCC provisions on “Divorce.”
Yes, under CCC 2384 divorce is indeed “a grave offense against the natural law,” and both CCC 2384 and 2385 go on to speak in further highly negative terms about divorce. But isn’t this on the assumption that there is indeed a “canonically valid marriage” to begin with? See CCC 2386, which contrasts the moral condition of “the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law” with the moral condition of “one through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.” Isn’t the purpose of the annulment process in the Church to determine if the marriage was in fact “canonically valid” in the first place? Don’t the strong proscriptions on “divorce” apply only if there is indeed such a “canonically valid marriage?” See also CCC 1638-1651 and Code of Canon Law, Canon 1141, which talk respectively in equally strong terms about the indissolubility of a “valid marriage” or a marriage that is “ratum et consummatum.” Wouldn’t reading these provisions any other way be incoherent with CCC 1629, which addresses the annulment process?:
1629 For this reason [lack of free consent](or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.
For further details on annulments, see Code of Canon Law, Canons 1073-1107.
In short, if a marriage is annulled, or qualifies for annulment, isn’t it the case that dissolution of the marriage is not a “divorce” within the meaning of CCC 2384-2386 because people can only get “divorced” if they have been married to begin with?
And even if the Church arguably does grant annulments too freely, that would seem to be a different question.
Of course, being no expert on canon law (or even civil family law), with regard to all of this I clearly must defer to those who are.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
• "The separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond, can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense" (#2383).
...does not constitute a moral offense.
Annulments do not dissolve marriages, but recognize the invalidity of them--that is "if" and it's a big "if"--they were carefully studied and the canons applied properly. In this country, that has been shown not to be the case. Over the last 30 years, the Popes' annual addresses to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota have been ones of correction especially in the U.S. I encourage anyone with a desire to understand this problem to read these addresses from the Vatican website. The jurisprudence from the Roman Rota is supposed to be the authority and model for all the local tribunals, but the local tribunals seem to follow their own way and grant nullify loosely. Granting nullity on a true and valid marriage bond has no power to undo the bond that God has created. None! Yet thousands and thousands of people have received and continue to receive their coveted annulments and are told they are free to re-marry. So, common sense would say there must be many, many adulterous 2nd marriages out there snd it's a shame.
Marriage always possesses the favor if the law until and unless it has been proven to be invalid so those who divorce are still going against God who hates divorce. He made no stipulation about validity. Plus, it is wrong for our tribunals to require a divorce before they will accept a petition for annulment. It's backwards. Study the marriage first and if it is (truly and with a moral certitude) found to be invalid, then divorce would be in order. Once couples divorce, the likelihood of reconciliation is slim. If they remain married while going through the annulment process, there's a better chance of reconciliation. Yet, either way, if a marriage is found (again truly and honestly) to be invalid, reconciliation should be strongly encouraged and the marriage should be sanated. There is never a thought given to the children of these annulled marriages who will have a life of suffering seeing their parents break away from each other. I just cannot imagine Jesus approving all this.
Deborah,
I believe you are correct that an annulment does not “dissolve” a marriage. To clarify, then, the use of the term “dissolution of the marriage” in my comment was intended to refer to the situation where a spouse obtains a civil divorce, and thus “dissolves” the marriage under civil law, and the question is whether such a civil law “dissolution” is a “divorce” within the meaning of CCC 2384-2386. At least where the marriage qualifies for an annulment under canon law, it would seem that it cannot be a “divorce” within the meaning of those provisions because otherwise the Church would be calling a “grave offense against the natural law” something that it is prepared to endorse, and I don’t believe the Church endorses “grave offenses against the natural law.”
It is a different question whether someone who obtains a “divorce” under civil law but does not qualify for an annulment under canon law has committed a “grave offense.” Here, the comment by Anonymous, citing CCC 2383, and various earlier comments in the thread seem to be relevant.
It is also a different question whether the Church is granting annulments too freely, and here your observations are certainly sobering. However, regarding your comment that “those who divorce (in the civil sense I presume) are still going against God who hates divorce,” this begs the question whether it really is a “divorce” in God’s eyes (and here the Church is supposed to guide us, as it does in so many other cases where God does not make detailed stipulations). Also, shouldn’t we make a distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics?
But please understand, first, that (to repeat) I am no expert on canon law, just someone who is trying to use his legal training to make sense of what are admittedly rather confusing and complex provisions, so my reading of these provisions may be incorrect and, second, I think I do understand, at some level at least, the heartache and distress caused to spouses (and children) who want to defend their marriages in the face of a canon law system that seems to them too willing to nullify them. It is beyond my wisdom to know how the Church should best respond by reforming the system or in other ways, although I suspect the response must begin, as in so much else, with listening carefully to those who suffer the tragedy of broken marriages.
Anon 2, should the Church also reform its doctrine of sin and redemption from "listening carefully" to those who sin?
Or, perhaps we should change the Liturgy by listening carefully to popular sentiment....WAIT...we already did that...yikes!
Yes, yes, let us predicate Church dogma upon human feeling...
Gene: And there you go yet again! I never said ANY of those things. I was trying to help us work through the relevant provisions and issues in a lawyer-like manner, while also trying to demonstrate some humanity and compassion instead of offering just a cold clinical legal analysis. These are real people, with real lives, who experience real suffering, as you very well know, including those, like some in this thread I suspect, who feel abandoned by their spouse and their Church.
My goodness, Gene, if you were less concerned about “sniffing out” heresy, apostasy, or whatever in what people say all the time, and paid a little more attention to their actual words and the context in which they write them, you might actually understand their meaning instead of “leaping to conclusions” and projecting your own meaning into their text.
Sometimes I have the sense that you treat what I say as presumptively coming from “an enemy.” Perhaps I have been too indirect before. Now I will be more direct. I appreciate many of your contributions to the Blog but not this sort of thing. Please STOP it. I am getting really, really tired of it. Thank you.
As a person going through the annulment process, as a contentious respondent, for the second time I, undeniably, see the clergy, ALL of them, as the enemy.
I am scandalized by what the Catholic Church has been about regarding marriage for as long as I can remember, certainly since before my wife and I exhanged our vows in 1980.
Mercy has been used to rape justice since the days of Vatican II. That is reality. The answer certainly is not to rape mercy with justice.
But, this Catholic may very well abandon the faith, as a result.
This is one hell of a lot more important than getting laid!! It is time our idiot clergy, the higher, the more stupid, woke up and gave those like me a good listen!
Thank you.
Karl
Thank you for your post, Karl. I hope you will not abandon the faith and will remember you in my prayers.
Anon 2,
Right, if, for example, Mike Brady civilly divorces Sally, the wife of his youth and mother of his three sons, and civilly marries Carol who had three girls with hair of gold from a "prior relationship", the youngest one in curls. And "everyone" around them just knew with more than a hunch that the Mike and Carol were just so in love that they had to "marry" and form the "Brady bunch"...
Then this new "marriage" between Mike and Carol is really not a marriage. It is what our Lord called "adultery" and St. Augustine called an "adulterous remarriage."
It is definitely not wrong to separate from an adulterous relationship (it is actually necessary for eternal life in Heaven.) So, in a case like this a civil divorce is certainly okay because it doesn't claim to end a valid marriage. A "divorce" is not even possible because it doesn't "claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage is broken," because there is no valid marriage.
FCG
Father,
In your comments after the article you basically seem to be saying that any Protestant who civilly divorces and then seeks a declaration of nullity should be granted one because they do not have a "Catholic understanding of marriage."
IF you really believe this then boldly shout out the full implications of it. This basically says that few, if any, Protestant can validly marry. Which means that the vast majority of Protestants are in invalid marriages. God really did not join them. Which means that they are fornicating. Which Sacred Scripture very plainly tells us leads souls to Hell.
If you truly believe that few Protestants validly marry AND you are truly concerned about souls then SHOUT THIS OUT.
I suspect, however, that you will cower at this and try to come up with some nonsense that somehow allows Protestants to be in marriages acceptable to God until they no longer have the desire to be in that marriage and then magically God is okay with them abandoning it and seeking another one.
FCG
Your premise is completely wrong. Even Catholic marriages before a priest, if there is some impediment prior to the marriage which is proven in the annulment process, which then allows the Church to annul the marriage as a Sacrament, the couple was not living in sin, they were in a valid marriage, but it wasn't sacramental. If it were proven to be sacramental, then no annulment could be granted. So sexual relations and children of that non-sacramental union are legitmate! The same would be true of Protestants. What I'm saying is they for the most part do not believe marriage is a sacrament. Why should we tell them that it is. Just say that have a non-sacramental marriage before God. Keep in mind when a Catholic marries a non baptized person in the Catholic Church, their marriage is a non-sacramental union which the Church can dissolve.
The Church does not "annul the marriage as a Sacrament."
The Church is supposed to determine if the marriage is valid or not.
A valid marriage between two baptized Protestants is Sacramental.
You seem to be saying that practically all Protestant marriages are not valid. Actually, you really just seem to want to say that all Protestants who want the Church to declare their marriage invalid so that they can "legalize" a new "marriage" should be able to get what they want.
I pray that you are able to connect the dots as to where this evil leads. You must then... to be consistent... say that practically all existing civil marriages between Protestants are not valid. But shouting this out does bot win one favor with the people. So, you seem to want it both ways. Magically only the Protestants who abandon their spouses, force a civil divorce and then seek an annulment are really in invalid marriages.
The Protestants who continue on in their civil marriages are conveniently in valid marriages. Everybody is happy!!! Which is the goal of many modern shepherds.
FCG
Father, I suspect the last message will not help.
Let me ask this. My parents are baptized Protestants who intended to be faithful to each other for life and open to children (thankfully ;).
Can they be validly married if they believe the lie that their Baptist pastor teaches that a spouse can divorce and remarry if their spouse commits adultery?
Practically every Protestant believes this lie so is every Protestant who does in an invalid marriage?
FCG
Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The words of Jesus. And .... that's why I'm not Catholic. But just to show I play fair, here's the Douay-Rheims:
[9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.
This footnote isn't Jesus's. Note that "except it be" modifies "put(ting) away" and that "put(ting) away" is the condition upon which all succeeding consequences are predicated. I would sincerely like to see a counterargument that does not essentially say "Trust us, it's the way we say it is because we're so much more unctuous and holy than you."
Post a Comment