Posted on 02/02/2004 11:51:36 AM PST by Maximilian
Code: ZE04013020
Date: 2004-01-30
Cases of Marital Nullity Should Be Guided by Truth, Pope Stresses
Calls for Renewed Confidence in Reason
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 30, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The tendency to extend declarations of marital nullity while disregarding the objective truth is a distortion of the whole process, John Paul II warned when receiving members of the Roman Rota in audience.
The Catholic Church considers marriage indissoluble for life, but, following a rigorous process, it may establish that at times there are marriages that were never valid for reasons established in canon law. This could include reasons of age, violence or mental incapacity.
The Pope told the judges, officials and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Church's central appellate court, that theological reference to truth is what should guide all those involved in such a process. The Rota handles cases involving declarations of marital nullity.
Realizing that there is a "more or less open" skepticism "on the human capacity to know the truth on the validity of a marriage," the Holy Father stressed the need of "a renewed confidence in human reason, both in relation to the essential aspects of marriage as well as in that which concerns the particular circumstances of each union."
He said on Thursday that "often, the real problem is not so much the presumption [of the validity of the marriage], but the whole view of marriage itself and, therefore, the process to establish the validity of its celebration. This process is essentially inconceivable outside the horizon of the search for the truth."
"The tendency to extend nullities instrumentally, neglecting the horizon of the objective truth, entails a structural distortion of the whole process: The instruction loses its incisive character as the result is predetermined," the Pope emphasized.
John Paul II added: "An authentically juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the conjugal relationship."
Without it, "the marital institution becomes a simple extrinsic superstructure, the result of the law and of social conditioning, limiting the person in his free fulfillment," he stressed.
The Holy Father concluded: "It is necessary to discover again the truth, goodness and beauty of the marital institution which, being the work of God himself through human nature and of the freedom of the consent of the spouses, continues to be an indissoluble personal reality, bond of justice and love, ever united to the plan of salvation and raised in the fullness of time to the dignity of a Christian sacrament."
Most scripture translations seem to give permission for divorce due to adultery, but that's a translation problem.
The Greek work Pornea, found in the scriptures, can be translated as adultery, fornication, and unchastity (incest). More often than not it is translated into "adultery." If there were an adultery exception to divorce in Scripture, then Jesus would be contradicting himself. See this FR post for more info on this issue.
The Church does not recognize divorce and cannot grant a divorce itself.
The Church recognizes that it does not have the power to dissolve a valid, consumated marriage between Christians.
On that note, the Church cannot recognize the Ecclesiastical Divorce of another "sister" {seperated brethren??} Church.
Speaking on the subject of Eastern Orthodox Marriage legislation, the Second Vatican Council noted:
"These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations." (Lumen Gentium, Nota Previa)
In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes in practice the rulings of the ecclesiastical tribunals of the Orthodox. One can read more about these rulings here:
http://ortodox.webconnect.no/kirkensl%C3%A6re/divorce%20in%20the%20orthodox%20church.htm
Correct. Or more precisely, in the past millenium or so (since the birth of modern Canon Law in the Gregorian period), the Western Church has not granted Ecclesiastical Divorces. One need not look far back in Carolingian and Roman times to find that the Western Church did accept it. For example, the Code of Justinian of AD 528, which permits divorce for adultery and abandonment, was accepted by the Pope (then a citizen of the Roman Empire).
The formulation of Trent is that the Western Church has not erred in teaching as she does on matrimony, not that all who do not practice marital legislation by western standards are wrong. This formulation was due to the intervention of the Patriarch of Venice, who was familiar with the eastern custom.
Yes, but its like an invalid communion. You'd never know, and we believe the Merciful God will grant the grace and righteousness due anyway.
Does "legitimate marriage" = sacramental marriage? If so, in what official document do you find that the Church endorses it?
"After legitimate consent in the present case it is permitted to the one, even with the other objecting, to chose a monastery, as some saints have been called from marriage, as long as sexual intercourse has not taken place between them. And to the one remaining, if, after being advised, he is unwilling to observe continency, he is permitted to pass over to second vows; because, since they have not been made one flesh, it is quite possible for one to pass over to God, and the other to remain in the world."If between the man and the woman legitimate consent ... occurs in the present, so indeed that one expressly receives another by mutual consent with the accustomed words, ... whether and whether and oath is introduced or not, it is not permissible for the woman to marry another. And if she should marry, even if carnal intercourse has taken place, she should be seperated from him, and forced by ecclesiastical order to return to the first, although som think otherwise, and also judgement has been rendered in another way by certain of our predecessors." (Pope Alexander III, "Ex publico instrumento", to the Bishop of Brescia, inter AD 1159-1181, Denzinger 396)
Pope Alexander III admits that Supreme Pontiffs in the past had allowed the dissolution of legitimate sacramental marriages in favor of a second marriage when one spouse had left the other, and the second had remarried, and that even in his own day others thought otherwise. Obviously, the matter is one of dispute at that time. No surprise when you consider previous rulings like this one:
"If anyone in a foreign land should take a slave woman in marriage, and afterwards on returning to his own country should take a free-born woman, and it should again happen that he return to the very country in which he had been before, and that slave woman, whom he previously had, had associated with another man, this person in such circumstances can take another woman, but not while that free-born woman is living whom he had in his own country." (Pope Stephen III, Denzinger, pg. 119, note 1)
The Canons of Elvira are also pretty straightforward. While Canon 8 forbids those "who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others" from receiving communion even at death, Canon 9 allows the innocent party who has left an adulterer to receive communion "if perchance the necessity of illness urge that it be given", though otherwise they were then excommunicated. The remarriage of the innocent party was frowned upon, but clearly was not considered inherently evil, otherwise they would be disbarred from communion for life. The same position is staked out even more leniently towards the innocent party by Tertullian, Lactantius, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
First and foremost, canon law can be erroneous. Popes are not infallible in a general sense. The infalliblity of a Pope is within certain narrow paramaters.
>>"After legitimate consent in the present case it is permitted to the one, even with the other objecting, to chose a monastery, as some saints have been called from marriage, as long as sexual intercourse has not taken place between them.
This is not Ecclesiastical Divorce. What you miss here is that the marriages has not been consumated and therefore incomplete, not valid.
Also, whan a couple is separated from room and board for abuse or adultery (a "limited divorce" or legal separation), the non-offending party may join a religious order without consent of the offender. The offender can do the same but requires the consent of the offended. But it is not a divorce and neither are free to remarry -- unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce.
>>And if she should marry, ...she should be seperated from him, and forced...return to the first, although som think otherwise, and also judgement has been rendered in another way by certain of our predecessors."
Judgement rendered "in another way" is vague. For example, she might not have been ordered to return to the first but still orded separated from the second. If indeed the judgement of his predecessor was to accept the second marriage, it was wrong to do so and does not give legitimacy to remarriage.
>>Pope Alexander III admits that Supreme Pontiffs in the past had allowed the dissolution of legitimate sacramental marriages in favor of a second marriage
IMO, this sounds like someone's interpretation on what the Pope said. If the Pope actually meant what you say, he obviously thought it was wrong since he refuses to do the same, unlike his predecessors.
>>"If anyone in a foreign land should take a slave woman in marriage, ...circumstances can take another woman, but not while that free-born woman is living whom he had in his own country." (Pope Stephen III, Denzinger, pg. 119, note 1)
Once again without the whole writing, the context is not clear. Was the slave woman forced to marry? If so, then the marriage wasn't valid to begin with.
>>Canon 9 allows the innocent party who has left an adulterer to receive communion "if perchance the necessity of illness urge that it be given", though otherwise they were then excommunicated.
If anything,this only points out it was sinful, but to a lesser extent. The fact that communion was to be denied is proof that the Church REJECTED the second marriage. Allowing communion upon illness may be an act of mercy since death could be approaching and there is a chance for repentace. But it is in no way an acceptance of the second marriage as being valid.
>>The remarriage of the innocent party was frowned upon, but clearly was not considered inherently evil, otherwise they would be disbarred from communion for life.
Actually, I don't get that at all from the passage. Rather what I get is a recognition of the woman being wronged, and pastoral mercy being show if she were to get ill and death be around the corner -- she had a chance to repent. Obviously it was more than frowned upon. (Remember in those days, common illness could kill a person, so any illnes was serious).
There is a recognition in the West, of the injured party. However, unlike Ecclesiastical Divorce, that recognition does not allow remarriage. Why? Because a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.
>>The same position is staked out even more leniently towards the innocent party by Tertullian, Lactantius, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
There is a vast difference between taking a position on this issue and how the the Church treats a second marriage.
Also, one must remember something about the Saints: The Church doesn't accept EVERYTHING they said or claimed. It's not wrong to recognize that a party has been injured. What is wrong is to give them permission to live a sinful life via a second marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.