Expert: J.M.J. West - 11/29/2008

Question
QUESTION: In a previous answer to a question, I was told by the expert that the Western and Eastern sections of the Christian Catholic Church, prior to the spit into seperate entities in 1054 AD, both believed and allowed "divorce".  It is my understanding that the Western or Latin Roman Church has never permitted divorce but has granted decrees of nulity if there is a proven impediment at the time of the bond of matrimony.  This expert replied to me that the Western or Roman Latin Church did indeed permit divorce prior to the split in 1054 AD, and that the 15 separate, but equal sections of the Eastern Ortodox Church permit up to three divorces currently, but not a fourth.  The reason cited was that infidelity was spoken of by Jesus in Scriptures, and since that was a sin, a divorce could be accepted by the Patriarch and his council if they decided.  My understand is that marriage is a sacrament, and that a sin cannot dispense with a sacrament (or else rebaptism, reordination etc would have to be pretty constant).

My question is:  Is what this "expert" told me correct?  If, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has at any time accepted divorce, could you please tell me what primary source document says this, which would have to be a document prior to 1054 AD(although, even after that date would be fascinating readng.)

Thank you for your time and expertise.

ANSWER: Mary,

The expert was mistaken.  The first issue is whether or not Divorce is permitted, and the general answer was no.  Between to baptized people, the bond of marriage is sacramental and indissoluble by all save for death.  

NOW, it may be that a couple needs time apart, and as such a civil separation might be necessary on occasion.  Were they to undergo a legal (i.e. civil divorce), this would not affect the sacramentality of their marriage.  They would still be married in the eyes of God, and thus in the eyes of the Church.  (And, incidentally, there weren't mere "civil courts" 1000 years ago as there are today.)

That said, there is such a thing as an ANNULMENT, which looks at what was supposed to have been a valid marriage and - if it finds a grave matter which would impede a sacramental marriage from taking place - renders said supposed sacramental marriage "null", i.e. it never happened, even though most thought that it had.

On the whole, annulments are rare, and rightfully so.

The church has always followed the teaching of Jesus that remarriage while the ["ex"]spouse is still living is adultery.  St. Paul was very clear on this too.

Here's the relevant biblical passages and early church fathers weighing in on this issue:
http://scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html

You might also find this bit from the Catholic Encyclopedia helpful:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Now, it was the case that REMARRIAGE AFTER THE SPOUSE HAD PASSED was a licit possibility, and I know there was debate about how many times a person could be remarried thusly.  St. Paul gives no clear limit for number of times the general believers could marry after their spouse passed on (though Bishops may only be married once, he says), however he does strongly urge not to remarry to to "remain as you are" (cf. 1 Cor 7).  The East and West side had at times differing opinions on this matter (usually the East, involving the Byzantine emperors and their attempts to produce an heir), but there is on clear teaching.  You are permitted to remarry after your spouse passes on, and there is no clearly demarcated limit.

All this said, it's not inconceivable that some in the church abused or distorted the teaching/doctrine/practice at times.  I'd ask for particular instances from this expert, rather than general claims.

Hope that helps!

Peace of Christ,

-J.M.J. West

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Having received a coherent and correct reply from you, I would now like to know specifically if you are knowledgeable and able to answer the question of divorce with regard to the Eastern Orthodox Churches (15 I believe) ONLY. That was not clear to me in your reply. I have certainly in the past heard of situations within the Easter Othodox Churches which were called "divorce" although that could certainly be the result of a reporter being unfamiliar with the specific requirements of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Do any of the 15 seperate but equal sections of the Eastern Orthodox Church allow divoce and remarriage without an "annulment" or a "decree of unulity"?  If so, does that cover all of them since they claim unity of theology or or is only specific ones?  After my first reply from an expert, I asked another one (mainly because I was in a bit of shock, frankly) and he, and the next two that he passed me along to were unable to give me a reply.  Thus far, your the only one that appears to be able to give a correct reply, at least with regards to the 22 rites of the Catholic Church, of which the Roman Rite is the largest.  They all accept the "Petrine" Church teaching.  However, the Eastern Orthodox do not, they have no single position/person (even though one is supposed to first amoung equals which doesn't appear to mean very much, as far as I can tell as the others don't have to follow what he says, and they can each still dispute what he says) which speaks for all 15 entities, and thus my question. Have a close friend who is trying to decide to becomeing a Roman Catholic or to enter the Eastern Othodox Church prompts my wanting a clear answer.  To me, Peter is clearly the line that cuts the men from the boys. However, the final straw would be if the Eastern Orthodox Church accepted divorce, not annulments or decree of nulity (and who would make those decisions anyway, since we have three tribunals through which same must pass and be approved). I've heard the phrase "we don't do judicial" a few too many times. If they do not follow the Western practice, who decides, what tribunals are in existance to determine validity, especially since each section is independent, or is it just a decision by the Patriarch of that Metropolian and his council?  To me, that would be kind of like my bishop and his council making a decision regarding the validity of my marriage at the time of the bond with regard to the imediments that exist, and must be proved, hopefully with the bond being upheld if no clear, unquestionable impediment is as provable as would be in a civil court of law.  I've also heard that the Othodox community sometimes decides especially in the case of "abandonment of the women-and i guess maybe children" in favor of remarriage in poverty situations.
I do hope that you are able to give me a clear answer on this concern.  There is not a lot of time left before a decision will be made, and while my friend cares deeply about "truth", her husband is swayed more by experience than theology.  I think that the beauty of the Eastern Liturgy is part of the draw, so to speak, but there is a Catholic Ukranian Othodox Church in town which provides the same experience.  The "Petrine Ministry" seems so clear, logical and scripturally proveable that I can not conceive of there being any other question, but that's just me.
Again, as with last time, I do thank you for you help and you time which is so freely given.

Mary

Answer
Mary,

Thank you for your prompt and kind review, and I apologize that my answer didn't quite hit the mark.

My understanding has always been that the views on divorce and remarriage are quite similar between two branches (or the trunk and the many branches which split in the 11th century).

This site might be helpful:
http://www.freechristians.com/views_on_marriage_and_divorce.htm

I cannot fully vouch for everything on the site, but it seems to present the story that the orthodox do permit divorce and remarriage.

YOU WROTE
"Have a close friend who is trying to decide to becomeing a Roman Catholic or to enter the Eastern Othodox Church prompts my wanting a clear answer.  To me, Peter is clearly the line that cuts the men from the boys."

Amen.  You might enjoy this:
http://scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

The best proofs of the primacy of Peter (the real sticking issue of the Catholic/Orthodox divide in my opinion) are found there, and cleverly presented below:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

Hope that helps!

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West