|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I suppose my analogy to murder was chosen because I believe a marriage can die, or possibly be killed, by the action of one or both partners.
ITSM that the sin lies in the killing, or sundering of the marriage. Divorce being akin to burying a thing that is already dead.
Yes, there is something in that. But I find some Christian views of marriage very bleak and unforgiving. As I said earlier, I've worked with tons of people whose marriages were coming to an end, for various reasons, and they were better off out of it. To keep them in it, seems cruel and condescending to me. They have a new life that they can begin after all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I read an interesting story last year about a woman who had been an abused wife, frequently beaten and sexually abused by her husband, she had two children. One night when her husband was comatose with drink on the settee, she took a knife and stood over him, and her temptation to kill him was very strong. But she thought better of it and left him. He failed to provide for her and their children, and after 8 years of poverty, despair and depression, she met a nice, kind man.
They later married and had a child of their own. her second husband was a role model and example of love to all of her children and they grew into a very close and loving family. The parents did the right thing and brought up all the children in the Catholic faith, but were never able to take communion with their children. At the time or writing, this lady had gone for 33 years excluded from communion, and had seen children and grandchildren welcomed into the Church.
She wryly commented that, if on that fateful night, she's plunged the knife into her husband and killed him, she'd have been reconciled with the Church many years ago, but by living a life of love, she is unable to do so.
Yes, cases like this are real issues for the Catholic teaching on marriage (in addition to being very sad in their own right). It's not surprising that the unfortunate effects of the doctrine are a favorite subject for Catholic novelists, from Evelyn Waugh to Paul Bourget. (Though maybe it also has something to do with the fact that this teaching makes demands of some straight people that most conservative Protestant churches only make of gays.) But it's also worth pointing out that cases where doing the right thing leads to a worse outcome for everyone involved are an issue for all ethical systems that are non-consequentialist, which the Catholic ethical tradition emphatically is.
How could God insist on moral laws that lead to situations like this? Well, all Christians are faced with the task of coming up with explanations (adequate or not) for why God permits bad things to happen through the operation of laws of nature. Maybe certain goods are only realizable through those evils (and outweigh the evils), or maybe it's sufficient that one day God will wipe every tear from their eyes, or [insert your favorite answer to the problem of natural evil]. Catholics have to believe something like this about cases where the Church's moral law results in obvious evils.
Of course, people mostly agree on what the physical laws are, but clearly disagree about whether the moral law actually forbids divorce, as the Church claims. My point is just that it's not impossible that a God who evidently permits all sorts of natural evils would also permit some that result from moral laws.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not sure whether this sacramental bond is deemed to exist in non-Catholic marriages. In atheist marriages where neither party intends anything sacramental ? In cultures or sub-cultures where it is understood that divorce is possible ?
It also exists in non-Catholic marriages where both parties are baptized, but the Catholic belief is that even natural (i.e., non-sacramental) marriages contracted by non-baptized individuals are indissoluble.
As for whether marriages where one or both parties don't believe that marriage is indissoluble are valid, there's some dispute between the canon lawyers, but I think the better view is that the parties need only believe that marriage is permanent (i.e., not temporary or contracted only for a limited period of time), not that it's indissoluble.
[ 26. October 2014, 04:07: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Of course, people mostly agree on what the physical laws are, but clearly disagree about whether the moral law actually forbids divorce, as the Church claims. My point is just that it's not impossible that a God who evidently permits all sorts of natural evils would also permit some that result from moral laws.
But we don't go around commending the physical laws as right and proper - in fact we do everything we can to circumvent their effects. That's why we encourage the use of vaccines, why we use aeroplanes, heck, it's why we farm.
[codefix]
[ 26. October 2014, 07:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
How could God insist on moral laws that lead to situations like this?
My problem is that I'm completely unable to believe He does. We can't dent Jesus' ban on divorce and remarriage, but I don't think He wanted people to be forced to live in situations like that. There's always a case for mercy, which He showed in His life. In fact I don't believe that the lady in that story did anything wrong nor committed any sin. I know that puts me seriously at odds with Church teaching, but evry fibre of my being objects to the injustice of how such people find themselves to be victims of an inflexible doctrine.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And yet you joined the RCC which has more inflexible doctrines than any other major denomination including the Protestant fundamentalist ones? Always has. If I believed what the RCC says about itself, I'd be in the same boat as IngoB.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... If I believed what the RCC says about itself, I'd be in the same boat as IngoB.
It's this way of doing theology, which doesn't just apply to this issue, which is one of the reasons why it fails to persuade me of what it says about itself.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It is unswerving obedience to what Tradition believes and asserts about some things Jesus said. Regardless of consequences. "Jesus said it. Tradition reinforces it. We believe it. That's it".
And it just seems strangely at odds with other things Tradition asserts and believes about some things Jesus did.
And that sort of issue is is where hermeneutics meets exegetics. Are these Traditional interpretations consistent with the character of Jesus as described in these same gospels? What was the sitz im leben (life setting) which produced these sayings? What might that tell us?
I think that is the issue which serious Christians wrestle with over this subject and many others. Within Catholicism as well as elsewhere, if some recent survey results are to be believed. This issue isn't going away any time soon.
[ 26. October 2014, 13:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We can't dent Jesus' ban on divorce and remarriage, but I don't think He wanted people to be forced to live in situations like that. There's always a case for mercy, which He showed in His life.
Whether or not divorce is always and in every case wrong, is it seems to me slightly beside the point. One can believe that it is always wrong, and yet that once that sin is repented then the slate is wiped clean.
The injustice comes when sins are forgiven but honest mistakes are held against people for the rest of their life. Entering into marriage in bad faith is forgivable; entering into a fragile marriage in good faith isn't.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
... But it's also worth pointing out that cases where doing the right thing leads to a worse outcome for everyone involved are an issue for all ethical systems that are non-consequentialist, which the Catholic ethical tradition emphatically is. ...
Planeta Plicata, with all due respect, it is difficult for us to evaluate the value and persuasiveness of a source you cite in support of what you are saying, if when one gets there, it doesn't indicate who wrote it, when, in what context and if necessary, why it is relevant or persuasive.
Whoever wrote this chapter, and in whatever context, one confusing feature is that at the bottom of page 1 a footnote says 'Oxford 1957' but most of it reads as though it was written about 1946.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
... But it's also worth pointing out that cases where doing the right thing leads to a worse outcome for everyone involved are an issue for all ethical systems that are non-consequentialist, which the Catholic ethical tradition emphatically is. ...
Planeta Plicata, with all due respect, it is difficult for us to evaluate the value and persuasiveness of a source you cite in support of what you are saying, if when one gets there, it doesn't indicate who wrote it, when, in what context and if necessary, why it is relevant or persuasive.
Whoever wrote this chapter, and in whatever context, one confusing feature is that at the bottom of page 1 a footnote says 'Oxford 1957' but most of it reads as though it was written about 1946.
It's an essay by G. E. M. Anscombe, a British analytic philosopher of whom Wikipedia says:
quote:
She was also known for her willingness to face fierce public controversy in the name of her Catholic faith. In 1956, while a research fellow at Oxford University, she protested against Oxford's decision to grant an honorary degree to Harry S. Truman, whom she denounced as a mass murderer for his use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Planeta Plicata, with all due respect, it is difficult for us to evaluate the value and persuasiveness of a source you cite in support of what you are saying, if when one gets there, it doesn't indicate who wrote it, when, in what context and if necessary, why it is relevant or persuasive.
Sorry, I didn't notice that the author (who, as Dave W. noted, is Elizabeth Anscombe) wasn't noted in the piece. Here's the full citation: G. E. M. Anscombe, "Mr Truman's Degree," The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe, vol. III (Ethics, Religion and Politics). Blackwell (Oxford: 1981) 62–71.
Dave W. already gave the necessary context, but here's what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes about the piece: quote:
The absolutist stance informed a good deal of her other work in moral philosophy. In her famous pamphlet Mr. Truman's Degree (1958), Anscombe protested Oxford's decision to award Harry Truman an honorary doctorate. Her view was that Truman murdered large numbers of innocent persons, civilians, with nuclear weapons in order to get Japan to surrender. On her view, the end does not justify the means. It is not permissible to kill innocents for the sake of some greater good to be realized as a consequence of such action. Some, though it is worth pointing out not all, consequentialists will disagree that such cases are just out of the question (and many straightforward consequentialists could well agree that Truman was not an example of someone using means/end reasoning in a justifiable way). Anscombe's discussion, though, informed later discussions of absolute prohibitions in wartime such as Thomas Nagel's discussion of the attractive features of the absolutist position in “War and Massacre” (1972).
[ 26. October 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you. That's much more helpful.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess it is. It seems like a selective use of a moral absolute to me.
But it does highlight a significant moral issue. If you are convinced that Christ taught absolute indissolubility for all people for all time, and that His authority was such that He could not err in such matters, then teaching and practising that becomes a moral imperative for all who would follow Him. Regardless of consequences.
I'm not convinced that is what Christ was doing. If I was, I'd urge compliance, regardless of consequences. He is Lord, I'm not. So I don't think the issue is about absolutism and refusal to consider consequences. It's about what Jesus meant in these discourses and, in addition, how clear a record do we have of that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Entering into marriage in bad faith is forgivable; entering into a fragile marriage in good faith isn't.
Best wishes,
Russ
Is this an accurate summary of the Catholic position over annulment? Annulment is allowed for various reasons, not all of which connect to the intentions of the prospective marriage partners.
But I take your point. It is a straightforward consequence of the "one shot at it" doctrine. If you screw that up, you're screwed for life. Why? Because you are!
But you might get "lucky". You didn't screw it up, because you or your prospective partner did it in such a way that annulment rules apply. Even if you didn't realise you were doing that.
That doesn't really seem fair does it? But I think it points a finger at some of the dubious consequences of allowing annulment, rather than the overriding issue of indissolubility. Attempts to be merciful create selective wriggle room?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IMHO looking upon annulment as a way out is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty. It's also regarding faithfulness to a doctrine as more important than recognising fact.
1. It's denying that marriages do break, by pretending some of them never existed in the first place.
2. It's evading the fact that marriages break because of sin and unfaithfulness by one or both parties.
3. It's pretending that adultery (and a lot of other things) does break marriages, again by pretending that what has broken in some cases never existed, and in most others hasn't really broken after all.
4. It's pretending that a marriage didn't break down for the reason it did break down.
5. The logic of the argument is that if a couple find themselves in a marriage that might - but we don't know yet - have been entered into with an inadequate understanding at the time, then it is their duty to stop sleeping together, and get out of it quick, because once they start to have doubts, they ought to suspect they are living in sin.
So the logic is that it is a reason why people should not try and make a marriage work that is going through a rough period.
I know the RCC doesn't say that, but it seems to me to follow inexorably from believing everything depends on what people thought and did at the time of the marriage, which is the foundation of the whole principle of annulment.
6. I appreciate the fact that the Bishops think the modern world has become appallingly lax. They want to do their bit to discourage divorce. Nobody in their right mind can disagree with either that conclusion or the aspiration that follows from it. But that is not an argument for or against any doctrine. Indeed, to use the word that Planet Plicate introduced into the debate, that is actually a consequentialist argument - divorce is a bad thing (agreed); so what doctrine would reduce it.
The present position of the RCC on indissolubility is comparable for saying that the planets should orbit on perfect circles. So we will keep on rigging astronomical geometry to make sure that they do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Let us consider baptism. One can be baptised only once, then one just is baptised. No matter what one does thereafter, one cannot be de-baptised. Yes, of course one can negate everything baptism stands for in one's life. But one cannot shake it off by any human means, since while obtained through human intercession it is by nature Divine. What does an unbeliever, perhaps an anthropologist, see when he looks at baptism? He sees some kind of admission rite of a community. And yes, baptism is that. But to consider it only at that level is not appropriate for a believer. A believer must see a grander spiritual reality that encompasses but transcends such human purposes. That is not a denial of the general goodness of admission rites as they may occur elsewhere - these may be very good indeed. But baptism is better, and not in a quantitative sense but in a qualitative one: it has a Divine dimension.
We find that all but two sacraments have exactly this character. They superform a human good with a Divine reality and thereby turn it into something that can neither be repeated nor abolished. For its reality is no longer located purely in the human domain, it is with God. The two sacraments that are different - confession and anointing of the sick - are different because they are maintenance sacraments. They do not establish the fusion of human good with Divine reality, they repair it. To be more precise, they repair the sacrament of baptism, returning the person receiving them to the state that they ought to be in after baptism. (One deals with sin, and thus the frailty of the human intellect and will, the other with illness, and thus the frailty of the human body.) Both however presuppose precisely that one's baptism remains as a continuous reality. If baptism was destroyed by sin, then it could just be applied again. It is because of the unrepeatable and permanent nature of baptism that these "repair sacraments" are needed.
Notably, the Eucharist is not an exception. While it of course can be repeated often as a sacrament by the believer partaking, it also cannot be abolished or repeated for that which it acts upon, namely the bread and wine. After consecration, these just are the body and blood of Christ. One cannot de-consecrate them or re-consecrate them. The Divine reality has been established once and for all. However, this body and blood get consumed - normally by a believer, sometimes by being handed over to nature as they are in excess (and rarely in sacrilege). Thus we see that since the sacrament here was explicitly tied to a specific physical matter, the decay of that matter does end the Divine reality. But it is important to note that it is not our opinion that ends the Divine reality, it is not that we or the priest or anybody else thinks that the duty of bread and wine as body and blood are finished, over, unwanted and therefore this ceases to be the case. It is literally the physical decay of the physically realised sacrament that ends it. In a sense this is purely empirical. An unbeliever may not think that the Lord is really present anyhow, but he as much as anybody else can judge when the purported presence will be gone, namely as either stomach acid or perhaps bacteria on a compost heap decompose the physical carrier.
And so we come to sacramental marriage, and find that it is exactly like the other sacraments. It superforms a human good with a Divine reality. This is not visible to the unbeliever, but for the eyes of faith establishes a Divine reality that cannot be repeated or abolished. It just exists, in and through God. This is better than natural marriage, but without denying the good that can be found in other kinds of marriages elsewhere. Furthermore, like the Eucharist this sacrament is physically realised. Namely as the "union of one flesh". This is the reason why only the consummation of marriage, sexual intercourse, is what completes the mutual consent of the vows into an indissoluble Divine reality. A priest trying to consecrate thin air does not bring into existence the real presence without the presence of bread and wine, and likewise a couple speaking their wedding vows does not bring into existence the union of one flesh without having sex with each other. Once that is done though, we have the curious situation of a physically realised sacrament. Hence while the unbeliever cannot see the Divine reality - sees still only bread and wine, and still only a "normal" married couple - he can "empirically" determine how long it will last according to the believer. Namely until the physical decay of its matter. In the case of bread and wine, this usual occurs in the digestive system. In the case of marriage, this occurs by the death of at least one of the spouses. The union of one flesh then ceases to be, decomposes. Everybody can see that, no faith is required there at all.
Those who oppose the indissolubility of marriage, or de facto undermine it with accommodations that make its Divine reality disappear in practice, are simply at odds with the entire sacramental approach of the RCC. That's fair enough if they do not believe in it in the first place. But is is painful from those who claim to share this faith, and outright evil from those whose vocations it is to teach and defend it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That strikes me as both helpful and unarguable. The difference between the covenantal view and the sacramental view are clear to see.
I don't see how Catholicism can qualify that general understanding in the case of sacramental marriage without tearing a great hole in Catholic understanding of all other sacraments. That should give all of us pause for thought in any judging we may do 'from outside'.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
this sacrament is physically realised. Namely as the "union of one flesh". This is the reason why only the consummation of marriage, sexual intercourse, is what completes the mutual consent of the vows into an indissoluble Divine reality. A priest trying to consecrate thin air does not bring into existence the real presence without the presence of bread and wine, and likewise a couple speaking their wedding vows does not bring into existence the union of one flesh without having sex with each other. Once that is done though, we have the curious situation of a physically realised sacrament. Hence while the unbeliever cannot see the Divine reality - sees still only bread and wine, and still only a "normal" married couple - he can "empirically" determine how long it will last according to the believer. Namely until the physical decay of its matter. In the case of bread and wine, this usual occurs in the digestive system. In the case of marriage, this occurs by the death of at least one of the spouses. The union of one flesh then ceases to be, decomposes. Everybody can see that, no faith is required there at all.
Those who oppose the indissolubility of marriage, or de facto undermine it with accommodations that make its Divine reality disappear in practice, are simply at odds with the entire sacramental approach of the RCC.
Within that sacramental framework would it not make just as much sense to say that what is transformed by the sacrament of marriage is not the physical bodies of bride and groom but the relationship between those two people ? So that if that relationship should die, then the matter for the sacrament no longer exists ?
If you tell me that such is not what the great theologians of the past believed, then I don't doubt you. But it seems to me that there really is no argument here beyond "we've always done it that way". Which may be convincing to the traditionalist mindset, but not to anyone else...
Best wishes,
Russ
PS: if this understanding of sacrament is the basis for your belief, do you agree with PP's response above, which suggests that two atheists in a registry office, intending that their marriage should be permanent if at all possible but seeing nothing wrong with divorce if it should all go wrong, enact a valid sacrament of marriage thereby ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the bread and wine. After consecration, these just are the body and blood of Christ. One cannot de-consecrate them or re-consecrate them. The Divine reality has been established once and for all.
But if the wine corrupts to vinegar and you add lots of water to it, it ceases to be wine and the real presence, therefore, is no longer.
Maybe if 'love' evaporates in a a marriage, it ceases to be a marriage.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IngoB:
[qb] But if the wine corrupts to vinegar and you add lots of water to it, it ceases to be wine and the real presence, therefore, is no longer.
Is that actually true? It's the first I've heard of it. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Within that sacramental framework would it not make just as much sense to say that what is transformed by the sacrament of marriage is not the physical bodies of bride and groom but the relationship between those two people ? So that if that relationship should die, then the matter for the sacrament no longer exists ?
First, let's be clear, the question is not "what makes most sense (to us)" but simply "what is the case?" The sacramental system is not something dreamt up for spiritual progress and/or convenience. If you believe that, then you are already not believing in a Divinely given sacramental system, but rather in some kind of human-engineered spirituality (possibly with a Divine stamp of approval provided after the fact). If we ask ourselves "why this and not that" we are entering the realm of theological speculation. That's a fun sport, and I like to play it as much as the next man. But it simply has no bearing whatsoever on the actual practice, it has no standing to determine what we ought to do in faith. At least this is the case for the RC faith, which does not consider itself to be a kind of social contract negotiated on behalf of God by the current faithful.
Second, to then briefly speculate on the reason for this - with the understanding that any attempt to do so at best provides some motivation, and at worst unhelpful bullshit: Catholic sacraments all are physical with perhaps surprising insistence. For example, there are serious discussions whether in case of emergency it is sufficient to spit on someone's face in order to provide the "running water" for their baptism (the answer is, by the way, yes). This is at odds with modern thinking which likes to neatly separate the conceptual, abstract and ideological into a kind of "mind space", and likes to restrict the impact of empirical means, of physical reckoning, to the mathematical theories of nature that we call "modern science". Unsurprisingly, the modern mind then comes to the conclusion that only modern science with its empirical backing is trustworthy, whereas in "mind space" anybody can make up whatever they like - and that frequently that's just what people do.
This is not Catholicism. This is not, I would say, appropriate to the human being as hinge of creation, connecting the material and the spiritual in one being; this is not in accord with the Incarnation. Rather the spiritual is nailed down in the physical, is made accessible, real and "objective" by residing in physical objects and observable actions. It is an enacted and embodied faith, substantive in both the metaphorical and literal sense. Yes, this means you get such "silly" question as whether spit counts as water. Empirics always has to deal with borderline issues. But it also means that the question whether somebody is baptised or not is an objective one, or at least as objective as one can possibly make something spiritual. The water was poured over the baby's head, the baptismal formula was said, the baby is baptised. Not ifs and buts and maybes. Facts. There is - for example - no need to determine whether some great conversion experience happened to any of the participants. We do not need to discuss whether such experiences are genuine or say an acute delusion under intense peer pressure.
The Catholic sacramental system is more like a craft than like some mental activity. What you do with what stuff determines what happens with God's grace. And there is something almost primitive in it all. It goes for the basic, visceral. Washing. Eating and drinking. And yes, having sex. So, my (theologically speculative) answer to your question is that the marriage sacrament is "physical" precisely to avoid that which you find so eminently reasonable. It is to say that no, we do not have to investigate deeply into the mind states of the couple to see if their relationship is still "alive enough" to be considered a marriage. Whether it is a indissoluble marriage or not is determined by sound and informed, explicit statement of one's will before a witness of the Church, followed by sexual intercourse. Clear, simple, factual - no mind games. And yes, if a marriage collapses then this can become a brutal reality. But the point is, it is a reality. Irrespective of how good, pleasing, useful and beautiful the couple or anybody else finds it.
And while I intentionally made this sound crass and forbidding ("if such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry"), it provides - shall we say - a certain grandeur to this attempt at having an intimate relationship with the other sex. Like writing "Calfornia or bust!" on your wagon as you head out West, you are saying that you will give it all you got because there is a serious risk of total failure. It's going all in. There is no reserve. No parachute. No safety net. You mess it up, well, it's game over and you have no more credit. And just like heading out to California with your wagon, there's a real fine balance there between being prepared and, well, being daring. You cannot secure this. You cannot hedge against failure. You can make reasonable preparations, but then you just have to say "well, here goes nothing" and have a go. And it is precisely not some bullshit exercise, where you cannot really fail, but only embarrass yourself a bit. Failure is real enough, lurks at every step of the way, and you will see plenty people fall by the wayside as you hopefully treck onwards into the sunset...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
if this understanding of sacrament is the basis for your belief, do you agree with PP's response above, which suggests that two atheists in a registry office, intending that their marriage should be permanent if at all possible but seeing nothing wrong with divorce if it should all go wrong, enact a valid sacrament of marriage thereby ?
No. They then have a valid natural marriage. I assume you mean by "sacramental" marriage here an "indissoluble" marriage. For that you need two baptised people, who understand and intend such a marriage, promise themselves to each other in an appropriate way (if they are Catholic: in the Catholic Church before a priest as notary) and then have sex with each other.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But if the wine corrupts to vinegar and you add lots of water to it, it ceases to be wine and the real presence, therefore, is no longer.
Maybe if 'love' evaporates in a a marriage, it ceases to be a marriage.
I've never thought of that one. Thank you Leo. Perhaps that's less stark that my theology - which I still think is often true - that just as it's possible to apostasise from one's faith, so it's possible to apostasise on a marriage, in which case, we being humans, I don't see the basis for holding the non-apostasiser to a bond that someone else has repudiated.
IngoB won't agree with me. I think I can live with that. But I'd like to know what more able RC theologians say, apart from 'the unfortunate repudiatee is held to their commitment because that is a symbol of how Christ continues to love us even when we have erred and strayed like lost sheep'. I can see that's quite a good argument, but it is a council of idealism. I'm not an idealist and I tend to regard idealism as a terrible temptation rather than inspiration.
If that were all there is to be said, then I can't see how logic, rather than St Paul, allows remarriage of the widowed.
I also still don't get the equation 'marriage is a sacrament ∴ that means it must be indissoluable'. There's no foundation for that equation in scripture. I don't know its history but to me it has the mark of the sort of theology that was developed between 1250 and 1600. Even the analogy with the mass doesn't work, because those who break the rules of the RCC aren't allowed to receive it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.... The sacramental system is not something dreamt up for spiritual progress and/or convenience. If you believe that, then you are already not believing in a Divinely given sacramental system, but rather in some kind of human-engineered spirituality (possibly with a Divine stamp of approval provided after the fact). ...
IngoB you've cross posted with me and have said something which makes clear to me something on which you and I profoundly differ, and I suspect will go on doing so.
To me the phrase 'Divinely given sacramental system' describes very accurately something that I do not think is divinely given. The Father gave us marriage at creation. Jesus gave us Baptism and the Last Supper, which are special, and many other wonderful things. Those are divinely given. But anything that can aptly, rather than misleadingly, be described as a 'sacramental system' has been constructed by theologians and the church over the centuries since.
There is much about the teaching that theologians and the church have developed over the centuries which is good wholesome and true. But the mere fact that they have developed it, does not mean that they have been 100% right all the time. I'd say that describing Baptism, Holy Communion/the Mass/the Eucharist/the Divine Liturgy/the Lord's Supper, or for that matter any of the other outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace for which we can be grateful as a 'sacramental system' is rather less than the truth and likely to get in the way of it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IngoB:
[qb] But if the wine corrupts to vinegar and you add lots of water to it, it ceases to be wine and the real presence, therefore, is no longer.
Is that actually true? It's the first I've heard of it.
Sorry for my ... weird code above (not sure how that happened), as IngoB was NOT the one who said that about the wine. I am really wondering, though, about how consecrated wine is understood if it does become vinegar.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But if the wine corrupts to vinegar and you add lots of water to it, it ceases to be wine and the real presence, therefore, is no longer.
Likewise, you can add cyanide to your spouse's share of the "one flesh" and let histotoxic hypoxia destroy your union rapidly. However, while undoubtedly effective such means of hastening the natural decay of marriages are rather frowned upon, in particular also by God.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I am really wondering, though, about how consecrated wine is understood if it does become vinegar.
I have not really come across this before but it seems fair enough. The question is simply whether what we would call wine has decayed, not by what means and into what other form.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Likewise, you can add cyanide to your spouse's share of the "one flesh" and let histotoxic hypoxia destroy your union rapidly. However, while undoubtedly effective such means of hastening the natural decay of marriages are rather frowned upon, in particular also by God. ...
IngoB that doesn't work as a parallel. Wine turns to vinegar by naturally going off, not by adding something to it. And water is normally added to wine that is then consecrated, and then is used to enable the ablutions to take place, though I'll give you that the very diluted wine then gets drunk.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I'm sure it's pointless saying this, but our marriage has been completely "faithful" for 34 years - but we were both married before - and not "faithfully".
Our marriage at its outset could have been regarded as unlikely to endure and unlikely to be exclusive, but it did and is. We like it. You Christians don't.
Oh well.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB that doesn't work as a parallel. Wine turns to vinegar by naturally going off, not by adding something to it. And water is normally added to wine that is then consecrated, and then is used to enable the ablutions to take place, though I'll give you that the very diluted wine then gets drunk.
The wine one drinks a communion is not "very diluted". And one can spike wine with "mother of vinegar" to make it turn more quickly. Anyhow, you miss the point of my response entirely. leo suggests that there is a sacramental analogy between wine souring and relationship souring. My response shows that if instead bodies are "soured" - if murderously - then the marriage ceases to be. So the sacramental analogy holds true there as well, and leo cannot conclude from it that it must be "relationship status" rather "union of one flesh" which is the matter of the sacrament.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Likewise, you can add cyanide to your spouse's share of the "one flesh" and let histotoxic hypoxia destroy your union rapidly. However, while undoubtedly effective such means of hastening the natural decay of marriages are rather frowned upon, in particular also by God. ...
IngoB that doesn't work as a parallel. Wine turns to vinegar by naturally going off, not by adding something to it. And water is normally added to wine that is then consecrated, and then is used to enable the ablutions to take place, though I'll give you that the very diluted wine then gets drunk.
The man and woman are the matter of the sacrament. Only when one dies do they stop being the appropriate matter for the sacrament of marriage. The matter and form of sacraments are all objective. The feelings and even actions of the couple have nothing to do with the continuing validity of the sacrament.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
On what is this specific belief based ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What specific belief?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On what is this specific belief based ?
It's basic Catholic belief about the nature of the Sacraments (of which Marriage is one). Here it is described in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) :
quote:
Constituent Parts of the Sacraments
In the first place, then, it should be explained that the sensible thing which enters into the definition of a Sacrament as already given, although constituting but one sign, is twofold. Every Sacrament consists of two things, matter, which is called the element, and form, which is commonly called the word.
This is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church; and the testimony of St. Augustine on the subject is familiar to all. The word, he says, is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament. By the words sensible thing, therefore, the Fathers understand not only the matter or element, such as water in Baptism, chrism in confirmation, and oil in Extreme Unction, all of which fall under the eye; but also the words which constitute the form, and which are addressed to the ear.
Both are clearly pointed out by the Apostle, when he says: Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Here both the matter and form of the Sacrament are expressly mentioned.
In order to make the meaning of the rite that is being performed easier and clearer, words had to be added to the matter. For of all signs words are evidently the most significant, and without them, what the matter for the Sacraments designates and declares would be utterly obscure. Water, for instance, has the quality of cooling as well as cleansing, and may be symbolic of either. In Baptism, therefore, unless the words were added, it would not be certain, but only conjectural, which signification was intended; but when the words are added, we immediately understand that the Sacrament possesses and signifies the power of cleansing.
In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite form of administering the latter, and hence they were very uncertain and obscure. In our Sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt.
These, then, are the parts which belong to the nature and substance of the Sacraments, and of which every Sacrament is necessarily composed.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The specific belief that the man and the woman are the matter of the sacrament.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
if this understanding of sacrament is the basis for your belief, do you agree with PP's response above, which suggests that two atheists in a registry office, intending that their marriage should be permanent if at all possible but seeing nothing wrong with divorce if it should all go wrong, enact a valid sacrament of marriage thereby ?
No. They then have a valid natural marriage. I assume you mean by "sacramental" marriage here an "indissoluble" marriage. For that you need two baptised people, who understand and intend such a marriage, promise themselves to each other in an appropriate way (if they are Catholic: in the Catholic Church before a priest as notary) and then have sex with each other.
Just to clarify my response to Russ, I didn't mean to suggest that a marriage between two (unbaptized) atheists is sacramental; as IngoB says, it's a natural marriage. The Catholic belief is, however, that even natural marriages are indissoluble except in the case of certain limited exceptions. See Casti Connubii § 34 ("Therefore although the sacramental element may be absent from a marriage as is the case among unbelievers, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage there must remain and indeed there does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so bound up with matrimony from its first institution that it is not subject to any civil power.").
[ 27. October 2014, 20:55: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I am really wondering, though, about how consecrated wine is understood if it does become vinegar.
... Still! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) And no one will tell me!
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
So when did churches start celebrating/performing marriages? I've been told it was several centuries along. I've also been told that the Eastern CHurches only started doing it after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, when they were required to do so by their new rulers. True? False?
And at what point did marriage enter the list of sacraments? Again, I've been told well along into the 14th or 15th century. True? False?
You can see where this leads, in terms of understanding of the dissolubility of "sacramental" marriage.
But more than that, it would be nice to know if what I've been told is true.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think there are some historical connections with Whit Sunday, John. Will do some digging.
I think marriage is a "covenant betwixt them made" by public promises. Said it several times; Registrars legalise, Churches solemnise, but essentially people marry each other. To love and to cherish, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death do us part. That's the promise we made to one another, before God, our family and friends. I still think that's a big deal. and following Jesus, keeping promises, letting our yes be yes, is a mark of personal integrity. It's sad when that proves to be impossible.
The sacramental Divine handcuff is another matter, however. I can see how Catholicism got there and I can't see how it can ever get out of there. But I'm not there personally.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The specific belief that the man and the woman are the matter of the sacrament.
Well, that was mostly my rendering in context of the discussion with leo, and not as such intended as a precise definition. First, one must distinguish between the sacrament "in fieri" (as it comes into being), and the sacrament "in facto esse" (as it is being lived). As the sacrament comes into being, it is the mutual offering of martial rights that is typically considered as the matter, and the mutual acceptance thereof that is considered as the form of the marriage sacrament. Whereas the spouses themselves are the material object of the this sacramental exchange (that which all the offering and receiving is about) and the establishment of the marital bond is the formal object (the shape established by the offering and receiving). Thus as far as the lived sacrament goes, one can in consequence talk about the spouses as the matter and their bond as the form.
I don't exactly know when and where one would best locate this belief. Obviously, the "Aristotelian" formulation thereof in terms of "matter" and "form" dates back only to the Scholastics, and my knowledge thereof is mostly from secondary sources that trace the implementation in canon law. But that does not at all mean that the essence of all this was only developed late. All the key insights are in scripture and then in the Church Fathers, with St Augustine being a particularly rich source. See for example Casti Connubii mentioned above for some references, including this from St Augustine: "In the sacrament it is provided that the marriage bond should not be broken, and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring."
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So when did churches start celebrating/performing marriages? I've been told it was several centuries along. I've also been told that the Eastern CHurches only started doing it after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, when they were required to do so by their new rulers. True? False? And at what point did marriage enter the list of sacraments? Again, I've been told well along into the 14th or 15th century. True? False? You can see where this leads, in terms of understanding of the dissolubility of "sacramental" marriage. But more than that, it would be nice to know if what I've been told is true.
No, this is all false. The mentioning of marriage as sacrament can be traced back - well, in the first instance to St Paul in Eph 5:32, but if that is deemed too ambiguous then to various Church Fathers (Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose...). Various examples of and references to marriage liturgies and rites demonstrate that Christians got into the marriage business very early on, indeed likely from the apostolic age. It is nonsense to say that the Oriental Churches came late to the table, to the contrary it is their liturgical testimony which provides the clearest and earliest evidence for marriage being accepted as sacrament universally among the Churches, because the many early Eastern heresies that spawned all agree liturgically with the orthodox Easterners in this as well.
What is true is that the systematic teaching of the seven sacraments as such only came into being in the West with the rise of Scholasticism. But that's not because it was invented then, rather the Scholastics were all about systematising the faith they found in existence. They did a massive intellectual clean-up operation, and one of the results was the compilation of the seven sacraments - not as innovation, but as categorisation of existing teaching. But again it is false to say that this research was given official blessing only with the Council of Trent answering the Protestants. Rather this new compilation is already reflected in papal teachings of the early 13thC.
Sources for all this can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article.
[ 28. October 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... First, one must distinguish between the sacrament "in fieri" (as it comes into being), and the sacrament "in facto esse" (as it is being lived). As the sacrament comes into being, it is the mutual offering of martial rights that is typically considered as the matter, and the mutual acceptance thereof that is considered as the form of the marriage sacrament. Whereas the spouses themselves are the material object of the this sacramental exchange (that which all the offering and receiving is about) and the establishment of the marital bond is the formal object (the shape established by the offering and receiving). Thus as far as the lived sacrament goes, one can in consequence talk about the spouses as the matter and their bond as the form. ...
Can anyone point me please to where scripture, or even the Fathers, either adopt or commend this logic chopping way of doing either theology or ethics?
I hope by the way that most marriages do not involve "the mutual offering of martial rights". ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
one cannot be de-baptised.
This is so because there is no process to annul a baptism. But people can be declared unmarried, even though everybody thought they were, by annulment. This was ok at a time when it was only invoked under the strictest of criteria, and divorce was virtually unheard of. Even in non-Catholic England, it was once necessary to get an act of parliament to divorce. But the divorced were simply excluded and shunned by the Church (not just the Catholic Church). Come the 1960's when John Lennon could claim that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, church attendance was in freefall, and divorce was skyrocketing, these certainties were no longer so. Theologians and church administrators were forced to look again at these practices.
What seems to have happened in the Catholic Church is that, progressively the Church has used annulment to mop up the slack. The US is a good example as it has 6% of the world's Catholics and 60% of the world's annulments. So it continues. If you can't change anything else, change annulment procedure to make it even easier. A couple of years ago, on this forum, we were discussing the vain hope of reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, and IngoB commented that, the differences in the understanding of marriage alone, was enough to prevent any serious rapprochment. Well on this issue, I believe that the Orthodox way of dealing with it is more honest, more pastoral and better in every way than what has become the Catholic Church's deceitful and corrupt was of finding it's way out of a hole.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So when did churches start celebrating/performing marriages? I've been told it was several centuries along.
I'm not sure why this has any relevance to whether marriage is a sacrament, but since the Church teaches that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament, there's no doctrinal requirement that a priest even be present or that the marriage be celebrated in a church. The impediment of clandestinity -- which prohibits marriages without a priest present -- is ecclesiastical in nature; it was instituted at Trent by the decree "Tametsi," and could be abolished in the future if the Church chose to do so. In fact, even current canon law permits waiving the requirement that marriage be performed in a church and with a priest or bishop present under certain circumstances; see canons 1115-16.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I have to say that the explanation of why marriage is claimed to be indissoluble does seem to be post-facto justification. It seems to be internally consistent, which is always nice, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. It is worth noting that the quotation from Augustine says that marriage should not rather than can not be dissolved, which is the position I maintain. The RCC has, in fact, departed from what Augustine wrote in maintaining that marriage can not be dissolved.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anesti
Apprentice
# 18259
|
Posted
I just hope that the compassion for people seperated like myself, takes precedence over the urge to destabilse the RCC.
Posts: 19 | From: Verona | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I have to say that the explanation of why marriage is claimed to be indissoluble does seem to be post-facto justification. It seems to be internally consistent, which is always nice, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. It is worth noting that the quotation from Augustine says that marriage should not rather than can not be dissolved, which is the position I maintain. The RCC has, in fact, departed from what Augustine wrote in maintaining that marriage can not be dissolved.
"Should not" implies "can". There's no point prohibiting the impossible.
But I think this is the result of loose use of words. The "should not" is about the relationship. The "cannot" is about the metaphysical bond.
However, it is seeming to me at present that the position being put forward as the Official Catholic one is not logically consistent. In that the existence of such a bond both follows from the nature of a sacrament and applies equally to sacramental and non-sacramental marriage.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, St. Augustine states clearly inOn Marriage and Concupiscence that the marriage bond is indissoluble.
quote:
Thus between the conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent obligation, and can be cancelled neither by separation nor by union with another.
-On Marriage and Concupiscence Book I Chapter 11
You could disregard St. Augustine. The Orthodox do. Look, if the RCC did theology like the Orthodox or Protestants, the RCC would allow remarriage like everybody else. It doesn't. I think that's the point.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
However, it is seeming to me at present that the position being put forward as the Official Catholic one is not logically consistent. In that the existence of such a bond both follows from the nature of a sacrament and applies equally to sacramental and non-sacramental marriage.
Compare the situation to that of a government making laws about the contractual exchange of property. The principle that goods can be exchanged by contract, and that then ownership is transferred, holds generally for all such contracts. However, if we have two children who make that kind of contract to exchange their toys, then relevant authority (most likely as devolved to the parents...) may rule that contract as not binding due to the non-adult state of the parties involved. (Though the parents may wish to uphold the contract precisely as a reflection of the "real law".) Likewise contracts between a child and an adult may be questionable. Finally, for specific and compelling just cause the government may even consider the contract between two adults as not binding, even though the contract as such appears valid, if the contractual obligation has not been realised yet. Imagine that one of the parties suddenly incurred a great debt, and fulfilling the contract would render them bankrupt, then if no exchange of goods had occurred a cancellation may be permissible. However, if a valid contract was made between adults, and if the goods were exchanged according to it, then the ownership is transferred. If the government were to step in and reverse this, then it would amount to usurping the constitutional right to property of the parties - and the government cannot do so, as it is bound by the constitution. The only thing that the government can do in the case of contracts that have been fulfilled is to look if they were in some way or form invalid. In that case the transfer of ownership can be reversed because there never was a binding contract in the first place (though everybody may have acted in the belief that there was).
I hope the analogy is clear. What marriage is about does not vary, it is Divine law. However, the "fitness" of people engaging in marriage does vary. And a principle distinction is made there - well, in the first place by Jesus Christ Himself - between the followers of Christ and those who are not (at the time those others were Jews following Mosaic rules). Christians are held explicitly to an "adult" obedience of the Divine law, whereas non-Christians may be treated more leniently (like "children") by the Church (the "government"). To avoid misunderstanding, the implied difference here is not one of intellectual and emotional maturity, but rather one of grace. Christians obtain the graces of the sacrament marriage, in addition to having the graces of baptism, confirmation, etc. as well. Christians are "adult in Divine grace", so to speak. The Church cannot however cancel a marriage between two Christians that has been consummated. That would attack the very constitution that Christ has given marriage as the union of one flesh (in the analogy it would remove the very idea of personal property and replace it with the whim of government). The Church can bind and loosen right up to that point (with ever increasing trepidation), but then she must stop or exceed the authority granted to her.
It is not correct to conclude from all this that non-Christians (whether secular or having a different religion) are just free to do whatever they want concerning marriage. The Divine law binds all, and all will be judged according to it. We may also all speculate how justice and mercy will play out for this one. But in a sense the rules and regulations we are discussing here are more about the Church than about the couples. The question is what the Church may do with regards to her governance over her sacraments. Where can she "bind and loosen", and thus create realities that will hold true for before God; and where are the boundaries of the Divine constitution she cannot cross. In a way, what is being upheld here is a basic right of Christian individuals against the power of the Church. Ultimately, if people marry fully according to the Lord, then the Church can do nothing about that other than to celebrate it. But if they then later come to regret it, the Church remains powerless to do anything about it. Them's the breaks.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you!! 
