To begin with the church will not excommunicate someone that marries a muslim. Excommunication in the church was and is always associated with the divinity of Jesus Christ and the heretical teachings associated with it.
The church allows divorce under two conditions
1. Adultry by either partner
2. Or if there is a conversion of religion by either partner
I have to say that I agree with filobateer in that I learned much form this thread, however, something that you said hardyakka caught my attention (as you can see above..lol). I've heard it said that, along with these reasons, a person may get a divorce if their partner is mentally sick. Please feel free to correct me, but I remember hearing it at a spiritual convention so I feel that it has some merit to it.
I don't know whether it's permitted in church or not, but I will find it a little harsh if the church actually permits a divorce in that case. If someone is mentally sick...is that their fault? uhh no so why would someone who supposedly love them (and wanted to spend the rest of their life with them) divorce them when it's really a hard time for the other person.
I agree with Marianne. If someone loved another to the point of marriage, but then when they discover that the other person is ill they no longer want to be part of the relationship? What kind of love is this? Selfish love, and according to St. Paul, that's not one of the characteristics of love. Instead that person should stand by their wife/husband and raise them up, not bring them down.
To begin with the church will not excommunicate someone that marries a muslim. Excommunication in the church was and is always associated with the divinity of Jesus Christ and the heretical teachings associated with it.
Not quite accurate.
Any person who marries outside the Orthodox Church is considered to live in adultry, not out of weakness but advocating the lifestyle, and is excommunicated. He/she and a "proud" homsexual are one and the same. They advocate sin and fall in it with intention. He/she are not allowed to receive any sacrament until they repent and get out of such unholy relation.
A person who falls into heresy, whether by changing his/her religion (including joining a heretical "church") or believing in a false doctrine and insists on it is excommunicated and his/her spouse are divorced and free to remarry.
I don't know whether it's permitted in church or not, but I will find it a little harsh if the church actually permits a divorce in that case. If someone is mentally sick...is that their fault?
If not disclosed fully before the marriage, it is definitely their fault. Not because they are sick, but because they deceived their partner.
You might be surprised to know that a person who engaged in sexual immorality before marriage must disclose it to the spouse to be before marriage to have a valid marriage. If it is discovered after marriage and there was an element of deception, the marriage is annulled. It goes for men and women alike, with the case for men of course not easy to discover.
"If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"1 Corinthians 7: 12-16
The passage of the epistle is clear but does not apply to christian orthodox people changing their beliefs after marriage and joining another religion. It is clear that it applies to the person who starts as an unbeliever and then comes to the Orthodox faith. Such person is permitted to stay with his/her partner if there is no chance to get away from such relation. But it is encouraged to leave the unbeliever behind.
A Muslim married couple - The woman wishes to convert to C.O. - The Church will not accept her as long as she is married to her muslim husband
Will accept her and will be permitted to live with the husband which is a severe yoke and cross to bear. Read above.
[quote author=Marianne87 link=board=4;threadid=4047;start=30#msg58099 date=1153802933] Well ya nothing is simple... that was just my opnion :-\
I'm sorry Marianne, I didn't mean to sound harsh. It was 1 in the morning so I wasn't concentrating. I totally understand what you mean about the loved one, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, all I meant was that it's not with such simplicity, there are certain restrictions I believe.
[quote author=ProudCoptic link=board=4;threadid=4047;start=15#msg56819 date=1151251548] This is a very interesting discussion. I think like mina said "excommunicated" is a big word. But a person who married in another religion is not allowed to take Holy Communion. That does not means they are not allowed to attend Liturgy. But in order to be allowed to take Holy Communion. They have to do either one of two things. That is.
1) Divorce none believer or 2) Baptize spouse and get married in COC
This is true... in my church there was a couple... 1 was coptic the other was not. They married in her church. They were allowed to attend liturgy and mass; but neither were allowed to partake in holy communion.
First the non-orthodox spouse needed to be baptized in the church. Then they both had to take confession Finally they needed to be married into the coptic orthodox church. (Baptizm alone was not enough) It didn't need to be a full blown wedding just in abouna's office and they both had to wear the robes and crowns.
To begin with the church will not excommunicate someone that marries a muslim. Excommunication in the church was and is always associated with the divinity of Jesus Christ and the heretical teachings associated with it.
The church allows divorce under two conditions
1. Adultry by either partner
2. Or if there is a conversion of religion by either partner
[/quote]
I have to say that I agree with filobateer in that I learned much form this thread, however, something that you said hardyakka caught my attention (as you can see above..lol). I've heard it said that, along with these reasons, a person may get a divorce if their partner is mentally sick. Please feel free to correct me, but I remember hearing it at a spiritual convention so I feel that it has some merit to it.
Sleepy
I've been on this forum for quite the time and I hate necro-bumping threads since I know this is against the rules but I can't help but ask about this than make a seperate thread. Forgive me!
I've always been under the assumption that excommunication instantly happens when someone marries a Muslim within the Coptic Orthodox Church. Are you saying that this isn't true?
I'm familiar with the Greek Orthodox Church, and I know that they automatically excommunicate a person who marries anyone who isn't Greek Orthodox. I assumed that is the same for the Coptic Orthodox Church, unless I'm reading this post wrong.
I'm familiar with the Greek Orthodox Church, and I know that they automatically excommunicate a person who marries anyone who isn't Greek Orthodox.
Hi Mike not sure if that is the case. I thought that Orthodox who marry non-Orthodox Christians who believe in the Trinity can marry in the Church and retain their sacramental privileges. It's seen as a decision of economia.
Another really personal example is that my daughter Beth met a young man at the college that they both went to, really fine fellow, I dearly love him, Roman Catholic. And she began to date him and fell in love with him, and of course asked me "you know dad what do you think about all this?" And I said honey, you are an adult and I respect your decision and I'm not going to impose my thought on you, I trust your judgement and I will walk with you through life. So we did. I really like her then fiance. My wife and I taught Beth Orthodox values, we certainly taught her that we would like her and hope that she marry an Orthodox man, and in her growing up years during college and after college she did date seminarians, with the hope of marrying a seminarian, in fact she dated four different seminarians and none of them worked out. It was just not meant to be and it was clearly just not meant to be. So that's where life went.
Beth and Greg married in St Vladimir's Chapel, Beth being Orthodox and Greg being Roman Catholic, what was my opinion of that? I was just fine with it. I really liked the guy, I said, a man of values and integrity, dearly loves my daughter, great promise for the future and she's dearly in love with him. So in no way did I stand judgmental about him, and I told him all along, Greg you are Roman Catholic, I respect that, I respect your walk with the Lord and we'll say where this all goes.
Now as it turns out, virtually all of the time, he would go to the Orthodox Church with Beth and with their children as children came along. On occasion he would go to a Roman Catholic service, but basically he was going to the Orthodox service, just as a Roman Catholic, so he wasn't taking communion. Not that long ago, he on his own decided that he wanted to convert to Orthodoxy after ten years of marriage and did convert and is now fully Orthodox. What's my opinion about that? It's God's work.
I did not lean on him on any way, because I knew deep down inside me I had no right to do that. It's not my right to say I think you who married my daughter should be preparing to be Orthodox, no no no no, from my point of view that's up to God. He did convert. What would I say if he had gone his lifetime and remained Roman Catholic, that would be fine with me, really. Because it's not my call. It' between him and God. He is the finest young man on earth I could imagine to be married to my daughter, I'm a fully happy camper with the marriage as is, and I'm not going to impose my construct, my thought patterns onto him.
Excommunicating someone for their sin completely to not speak to them when they want to repent is like the Pharisees who sought to stone the adulteress St. Paul says if the unbeliever is willing to allow the wife and kids to be Christian they can stay together that was for the case of people who were married before they knew Christ I don't know if those who were christian who married a non christian must leave the non Christian partner To divorce someone because he has a mental illness and he does no harm is adultery How can a true church of God teach that ? I am very upset that this was mentioned
Some people perhaps did not see the gravity of the sin of marrying a non Christian agnostic thinking they can convert them and that it is their Christian duty to accept one before getting into a relationship with one and worried they would never find one to marry so I don't know but maybe one should leave one if they were Christian before marriage and if they have kids they should take them and leave and raise them Christian being married to Christ is more important than finding one to marry but the father of the child may want to see his kids so they would have to take turns seeing him and this may cause the child not to be Christian and be saved which is probably one reason not to marry a non believer . Under no circumstances should they live together and act like everyone is saved for that is a betrayal to Christ and it does not help people have the chance to know the truth
"When couples come to ministers to talk about their marriage ceremonies, ministers think it’s interesting to ask if they love one another. What a stupid question! How would they know? A Christian marriage isn’t about whether you’re in love. Christian marriage is giving you the practice of fidelity over a lifetime in which you can look back upon the marriage and call it love. It is a hard discipline over many years. – Stanley Hauerwas
No issues in the modern world seem to be pressing the Church with as much force as those surrounding sex and marriage. The so-called Sexual Revolution has, for the most part, succeeded in radically changing how our culture understands both matters. Drawing from a highly selective (and sometimes contradictory) set of political, sociological and scientific arguments, opponents of the Christian tradition are pressing the case for radical reform with an abandon that bears all of the hallmarks of a revolution. And they have moved into the ascendancy.
rubblechurchThose manning the barricades describe themselves as “defending marriage.” That is a deep inaccuracy: marriage, as an institution, was surrendered quite some time ago. Today’s battles are not about marriage but simply about dividing the spoils of its destruction. It is too late to defend marriage. Rather than being defended, marriage needs to be taught and lived. The Church needs to be willing to become the place where that teaching occurs as well as the place that can sustain couples in the struggle required to live it. Fortunately, the spiritual inheritance of the Church has gifted it with all of the tools necessary for that task. It lacks only people who are willing to take up the struggle.
Marriage laws were once the legal framework of a Christian culture. Despite the ravages of the Enlightenment and Reformation, the general framework of marriage remained untouched. The Church, in many lands, particularly those of English legal tradition, acted as an arm of the State while the State acted to uphold the Christian ideal of marriage. As Hauerwas noted in the opening quote, marriage as an institution was never traditionally about romantic love: it was about fidelity, stability, paternity and duty towards family. The traditional Western marriage rite never asked a couple, “Do you love him?” It simply asked, “Do you promise to love?” That simple promise was only one of a number of things:
WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her, in sickness, and in health? And forsaking all others, keep thee only to her, so long as you both shall live?
And this:
I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death; according to God’s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.
Obviously, the primary intent of these promises was faithfulness in all circumstances over the course of an entire lifetime. The laws that surrounded marriage existed to enforce this promise and sought to make it difficult to do otherwise.
Divorce was difficult to obtain – long waiting periods were required and very specific conditions had to be met for one to be granted. Churches made remarriage quite difficult, to say the least. Obligations to children were very well-defined and grounded in parental (biological) rights and obligations. Indeed, there was a large complex of family laws that tilted the culture towards marriage at every turn.
Of course, none of this would have represented any benefit had it not also reflected a cultural consensus. Contrary to popular sayings, morality can indeed be legislated (laws do almost nothing else). But moral laws are simply experienced as oppression if they do not generally agree with the moral consensus of a culture. The laws upholding marriage were themselves a cultural consensus: people felt these laws to be inherently correct.
Parenthetically, it must be stated as well that the laws governing marriage and property were often tilted against women – that is a matter that I will not address in this present article.
The moral consensus governing marriage began to dissolve primarily in the Post-World War II era in Western cultures. There are many causes that contributed to this breakdown. My favorite culprit is the rapid rise in mobility (particularly in America) that destroyed the stability of the extended family and atomized family life.
The first major legal blow to this traditional arrangement was the enactment of “no-fault” divorce laws, in which no reasons needed to be given for a divorce. It is worth noting that these were first enacted in Russia in early 1918, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The purpose (as stated in Wikipedia) was to “revolutionize society at every level.” That experiment later met with significant revisions. The first state to enact such laws in the U.S. was California, which did not do so until 1969. Such laws have since become normative across the country.
These changes in marriage law have been accompanied by an evolution in the cultural meaning of marriage. From the earlier bond of a virtually indissoluble union, marriage has morphed into a contractual agreement between two persons for their own self-defined ends. According to a 2002 study, by age 44, roughly 95 percent of all American adults have had pre-marital sex. For all intents, we may say that virtually all Americans, by mid-life, have had sex outside of marriage.
These are clear reasons for understanding that “defense of marriage” is simply too late. The Tradition has become passé. But none of this says that the Tradition is wrong or in any way incorrect.
Of course, there are many “remnants” of traditional Christian marriage. Most people still imagine that marriage will be for a life-time, though they worry that somehow they may not be so lucky themselves. Pre-nuptial agreements are primarily tools of the rich. Even same-sex relationships are professing a desire for life-long commitments.
But all of the sentiments surrounding life-long commitments are just that – sentiments. They are not grounded in the most obvious reasons for life-long relationships. Rather, they belong to the genre of fairy tales: “living happily ever after.”
The classical Christian marriage belongs to the genre of martyrdom. It is a commitment to death. As Hauerwas notes: faithfulness over the course of a life-time defines what it means to “love” someone. At the end of a faithful life, we may say of someone, “He loved his wife.”
Some have begun to write about the so-called “Benedict Option,” a notion first introduced by Alasdair MacIntyre in his book, After Virtue. It compares the contemporary situation to that of the collapse of the Roman Christian Imperium in the West (i.e., the Dark Ages). Christian civilization, MacIntyre notes, was not rebuilt through a major conquering or legislating force, but through the patient endurance of small monastic communities and surrounding Christian villages. That pattern marked the spread of Christian civilization for many centuries in many places, both East and West.
It would seem clear that a legislative option has long been a moot point. When 95 percent of the population is engaging in sex outside of marriage (to say the least) no legislation of a traditional sort is likely to make a difference. The greater question is whether such a cultural tidal wave will inundate the Church’s teaching or render it inert – a canonical witness to a by-gone time, acknowledged perhaps in confession but irrelevant to daily choices (this is already true in many places).
The “Benedict Option” can only be judged over the course of centuries, doubtless to the dismay of our impatient age. But, as noted, those things required are already largely in place. The marriage rite (in those Churches who refuse the present errors) remains committed to the life-long union of a man and a woman with clearly stated goals of fidelity. The canon laws supporting such marriages remain intact. Lacking is sufficient teaching and formation in the virtues required to live the martyrdom of marriage.
Modern culture has emphasized suffering as undesirable and an object to be remedied. Our resources are devoted to the ending of suffering and not to its endurance. Of course, the abiding myth of Modernity is that suffering can be eliminated. This is neither true nor desirable.
Virtues of patience, endurance, sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, kindness, steadfastness, loyalty, and other such qualities are impossible without the presence of suffering. The Christian faith does not disparage the relief of suffering, but neither does it make it definitive for the acquisition of virtue. Christ is quite clear that all will suffer. It is pretty much the case that no good thing comes about in human society except through the voluntary suffering of some person or persons. The goodness in our lives is rooted in the grace of heroic actions.
In the absence of stable, life-long, self-sacrificing marriages, all discussion of sex and sexuality is reduced to abstractions. An eloquent case for traditional families is currently being made by the chaos and dysfunction set in motion by their absence. No amount of legislation or social programs will succeed in replacing the most natural of human traditions. The social corrosion represented by our over-populated prisons, births outside of marriage (over 40 percent in the general population and over 70 percent among non-Hispanic African Americans), and similar phenomenon continue to predict a breakdown of civility on the most fundamental level. We passed into the “Dark Ages” some time ago. The “Benedict Option” is already in place. It is in your parish and in your marriage. Every day you endure and succeed in a faithful union to your spouse and children is a heroic act of grace-filled living.
We are not promised that the Option will be successful as a civilizational cure. Such things are in the hands of God. But we should have no doubt about the Modern Project going on around us. It is not building a Brave New World. It is merely destroying the old one and letting its children roam amid the ruins.
I doubt the church teaches divorce for mental illness either people here made that up or are misinformed
If you meant emotional abuse or physical abuse say that I also don't think you can divorce on a single case of abuse this does not fit with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ who taught us to lay down our lives for others and forgive others it is best to separate from such a person until they repent unless you suspect that person does not want to change then divorce is allowed
Comments
Hey Coptic Dragon.
To begin with the church will not excommunicate someone that marries a muslim. Excommunication in the church was and is always associated with the divinity of Jesus Christ and the heretical teachings associated with it.
The church allows divorce under two conditions
1. Adultry by either partner
2. Or if there is a conversion of religion by either partner
I have to say that I agree with filobateer in that I learned much form this thread, however, something that you said hardyakka caught my attention (as you can see above..lol). I've heard it said that, along with these reasons, a person may get a divorce if their partner is mentally sick. Please feel free to correct me, but I remember hearing it at a spiritual convention so I feel that it has some merit to it.
Sleepy
Sleepy
Any person who marries outside the Orthodox Church is considered to live in adultry, not out of weakness but advocating the lifestyle, and is excommunicated. He/she and a "proud" homsexual are one and the same. They advocate sin and fall in it with intention. He/she are not allowed to receive any sacrament until they repent and get out of such unholy relation.
A person who falls into heresy, whether by changing his/her religion (including joining a heretical "church") or believing in a false doctrine and insists on it is excommunicated and his/her spouse are divorced and free to remarry. If not disclosed fully before the marriage, it is definitely their fault. Not because they are sick, but because they deceived their partner.
You might be surprised to know that a person who engaged in sexual immorality before marriage must disclose it to the spouse to be before marriage to have a valid marriage. If it is discovered after marriage and there was an element of deception, the marriage is annulled. It goes for men and women alike, with the case for men of course not easy to discover. The passage of the epistle is clear but does not apply to christian orthodox people changing their beliefs after marriage and joining another religion. It is clear that it applies to the person who starts as an unbeliever and then comes to the Orthodox faith. Such person is permitted to stay with his/her partner if there is no chance to get away from such relation. But it is encouraged to leave the unbeliever behind. Will accept her and will be permitted to live with the husband which is a severe yoke and cross to bear. Read above.
Well ya nothing is simple... that was just my opnion :-\
I'm sorry Marianne, I didn't mean to sound harsh. It was 1 in the morning so I wasn't concentrating. I totally understand what you mean about the loved one, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, all I meant was that it's not with such simplicity, there are certain restrictions I believe.
Sleepy :D ;D
This is a very interesting discussion. I think like mina said "excommunicated" is a big word. But a person who married in another religion is not allowed to take Holy Communion. That does not means they are not allowed to attend Liturgy. But in order to be allowed to take Holy Communion. They have to do either one of two things. That is.
1) Divorce none believer
or
2) Baptize spouse and get married in COC
This is true... in my church there was a couple... 1 was coptic the other was not. They married in her church. They were allowed to attend liturgy and mass; but neither were allowed to partake in holy communion.
First the non-orthodox spouse needed to be baptized in the church.
Then they both had to take confession
Finally they needed to be married into the coptic orthodox church. (Baptizm alone was not enough) It didn't need to be a full blown wedding just in abouna's office and they both had to wear the robes and crowns.
Then they were able to partake in holy communion
I hope this helps,
MS
I've always been under the assumption that excommunication instantly happens when someone marries a Muslim within the Coptic Orthodox Church. Are you saying that this isn't true?
I'm familiar with the Greek Orthodox Church, and I know that they automatically excommunicate a person who marries anyone who isn't Greek Orthodox. I assumed that is the same for the Coptic Orthodox Church, unless I'm reading this post wrong.
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/pastoralguidelines
Another really personal example is that my daughter Beth met a young man at the college that they both went to, really fine fellow, I dearly love him, Roman Catholic. And she began to date him and fell in love with him, and of course asked me "you know dad what do you think about all this?" And I said honey, you are an adult and I respect your decision and I'm not going to impose my thought on you, I trust your judgement and I will walk with you through life. So we did. I really like her then fiance. My wife and I taught Beth Orthodox values, we certainly taught her that we would like her and hope that she marry an Orthodox man, and in her growing up years during college and after college she did date seminarians, with the hope of marrying a seminarian, in fact she dated four different seminarians and none of them worked out. It was just not meant to be and it was clearly just not meant to be. So that's where life went.
Beth and Greg married in St Vladimir's Chapel, Beth being Orthodox and Greg being Roman Catholic, what was my opinion of that? I was just fine with it. I really liked the guy, I said, a man of values and integrity, dearly loves my daughter, great promise for the future and she's dearly in love with him. So in no way did I stand judgmental about him, and I told him all along, Greg you are Roman Catholic, I respect that, I respect your walk with the Lord and we'll say where this all goes.
Now as it turns out, virtually all of the time, he would go to the Orthodox Church with Beth and with their children as children came along. On occasion he would go to a Roman Catholic service, but basically he was going to the Orthodox service, just as a Roman Catholic, so he wasn't taking communion. Not that long ago, he on his own decided that he wanted to convert to Orthodoxy after ten years of marriage and did convert and is now fully Orthodox. What's my opinion about that? It's God's work.
I did not lean on him on any way, because I knew deep down inside me I had no right to do that. It's not my right to say I think you who married my daughter should be preparing to be Orthodox, no no no no, from my point of view that's up to God. He did convert. What would I say if he had gone his lifetime and remained Roman Catholic, that would be fine with me, really. Because it's not my call. It' between him and God. He is the finest young man on earth I could imagine to be married to my daughter, I'm a fully happy camper with the marriage as is, and I'm not going to impose my construct, my thought patterns onto him.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/healingpresence/evangelism
To divorce someone because he has a mental illness and he does no harm is adultery
How can a true church of God teach that ?
I am very upset that this was mentioned
Some people perhaps did not see the gravity of the sin of marrying a non Christian agnostic thinking they can convert them and that it is their Christian duty to accept one before getting into a relationship with one and worried they would never find one to marry so I don't know but maybe one should leave one if they were Christian before marriage and if they have kids they should take them and leave and raise them Christian being married to Christ is more important than finding one to marry but the father of the child may want to see his kids so they would have to take turns seeing him and this may cause the child not to be Christian and be saved which is probably one reason not to marry a non believer . Under no circumstances should they live together and act like everyone is saved for that is a betrayal to Christ and it does not help people have the chance to know the truth
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/re_marriage_in_the_orthodox_church
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2015/05/05/marriage-as-a-lifetime-of-suffering/
"When couples come to ministers to talk about their marriage ceremonies, ministers think it’s interesting to ask if they love one another. What a stupid question! How would they know? A Christian marriage isn’t about whether you’re in love. Christian marriage is giving you the practice of fidelity over a lifetime in which you can look back upon the marriage and call it love. It is a hard discipline over many years. – Stanley Hauerwas
No issues in the modern world seem to be pressing the Church with as much force as those surrounding sex and marriage. The so-called Sexual Revolution has, for the most part, succeeded in radically changing how our culture understands both matters. Drawing from a highly selective (and sometimes contradictory) set of political, sociological and scientific arguments, opponents of the Christian tradition are pressing the case for radical reform with an abandon that bears all of the hallmarks of a revolution. And they have moved into the ascendancy.
rubblechurchThose manning the barricades describe themselves as “defending marriage.” That is a deep inaccuracy: marriage, as an institution, was surrendered quite some time ago. Today’s battles are not about marriage but simply about dividing the spoils of its destruction. It is too late to defend marriage. Rather than being defended, marriage needs to be taught and lived. The Church needs to be willing to become the place where that teaching occurs as well as the place that can sustain couples in the struggle required to live it. Fortunately, the spiritual inheritance of the Church has gifted it with all of the tools necessary for that task. It lacks only people who are willing to take up the struggle.
Marriage laws were once the legal framework of a Christian culture. Despite the ravages of the Enlightenment and Reformation, the general framework of marriage remained untouched. The Church, in many lands, particularly those of English legal tradition, acted as an arm of the State while the State acted to uphold the Christian ideal of marriage. As Hauerwas noted in the opening quote, marriage as an institution was never traditionally about romantic love: it was about fidelity, stability, paternity and duty towards family. The traditional Western marriage rite never asked a couple, “Do you love him?” It simply asked, “Do you promise to love?” That simple promise was only one of a number of things:
WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her, in sickness, and in health? And forsaking all others, keep thee only to her, so long as you both shall live?
And this:
I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death; according to God’s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.
Divorce was difficult to obtain – long waiting periods were required and very specific conditions had to be met for one to be granted. Churches made remarriage quite difficult, to say the least. Obligations to children were very well-defined and grounded in parental (biological) rights and obligations. Indeed, there was a large complex of family laws that tilted the culture towards marriage at every turn.
Of course, none of this would have represented any benefit had it not also reflected a cultural consensus. Contrary to popular sayings, morality can indeed be legislated (laws do almost nothing else). But moral laws are simply experienced as oppression if they do not generally agree with the moral consensus of a culture. The laws upholding marriage were themselves a cultural consensus: people felt these laws to be inherently correct.
Parenthetically, it must be stated as well that the laws governing marriage and property were often tilted against women – that is a matter that I will not address in this present article.
The moral consensus governing marriage began to dissolve primarily in the Post-World War II era in Western cultures. There are many causes that contributed to this breakdown. My favorite culprit is the rapid rise in mobility (particularly in America) that destroyed the stability of the extended family and atomized family life.
The first major legal blow to this traditional arrangement was the enactment of “no-fault” divorce laws, in which no reasons needed to be given for a divorce. It is worth noting that these were first enacted in Russia in early 1918, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The purpose (as stated in Wikipedia) was to “revolutionize society at every level.” That experiment later met with significant revisions. The first state to enact such laws in the U.S. was California, which did not do so until 1969. Such laws have since become normative across the country.
These changes in marriage law have been accompanied by an evolution in the cultural meaning of marriage. From the earlier bond of a virtually indissoluble union, marriage has morphed into a contractual agreement between two persons for their own self-defined ends. According to a 2002 study, by age 44, roughly 95 percent of all American adults have had pre-marital sex. For all intents, we may say that virtually all Americans, by mid-life, have had sex outside of marriage.
These are clear reasons for understanding that “defense of marriage” is simply too late. The Tradition has become passé. But none of this says that the Tradition is wrong or in any way incorrect.
Of course, there are many “remnants” of traditional Christian marriage. Most people still imagine that marriage will be for a life-time, though they worry that somehow they may not be so lucky themselves. Pre-nuptial agreements are primarily tools of the rich. Even same-sex relationships are professing a desire for life-long commitments.
But all of the sentiments surrounding life-long commitments are just that – sentiments. They are not grounded in the most obvious reasons for life-long relationships. Rather, they belong to the genre of fairy tales: “living happily ever after.”
The classical Christian marriage belongs to the genre of martyrdom. It is a commitment to death. As Hauerwas notes: faithfulness over the course of a life-time defines what it means to “love” someone. At the end of a faithful life, we may say of someone, “He loved his wife.”
Some have begun to write about the so-called “Benedict Option,” a notion first introduced by Alasdair MacIntyre in his book, After Virtue. It compares the contemporary situation to that of the collapse of the Roman Christian Imperium in the West (i.e., the Dark Ages). Christian civilization, MacIntyre notes, was not rebuilt through a major conquering or legislating force, but through the patient endurance of small monastic communities and surrounding Christian villages. That pattern marked the spread of Christian civilization for many centuries in many places, both East and West.
It would seem clear that a legislative option has long been a moot point. When 95 percent of the population is engaging in sex outside of marriage (to say the least) no legislation of a traditional sort is likely to make a difference. The greater question is whether such a cultural tidal wave will inundate the Church’s teaching or render it inert – a canonical witness to a by-gone time, acknowledged perhaps in confession but irrelevant to daily choices (this is already true in many places).
The “Benedict Option” can only be judged over the course of centuries, doubtless to the dismay of our impatient age. But, as noted, those things required are already largely in place. The marriage rite (in those Churches who refuse the present errors) remains committed to the life-long union of a man and a woman with clearly stated goals of fidelity. The canon laws supporting such marriages remain intact. Lacking is sufficient teaching and formation in the virtues required to live the martyrdom of marriage.
Modern culture has emphasized suffering as undesirable and an object to be remedied. Our resources are devoted to the ending of suffering and not to its endurance. Of course, the abiding myth of Modernity is that suffering can be eliminated. This is neither true nor desirable.
Virtues of patience, endurance, sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, kindness, steadfastness, loyalty, and other such qualities are impossible without the presence of suffering. The Christian faith does not disparage the relief of suffering, but neither does it make it definitive for the acquisition of virtue. Christ is quite clear that all will suffer. It is pretty much the case that no good thing comes about in human society except through the voluntary suffering of some person or persons. The goodness in our lives is rooted in the grace of heroic actions.
In the absence of stable, life-long, self-sacrificing marriages, all discussion of sex and sexuality is reduced to abstractions. An eloquent case for traditional families is currently being made by the chaos and dysfunction set in motion by their absence. No amount of legislation or social programs will succeed in replacing the most natural of human traditions. The social corrosion represented by our over-populated prisons, births outside of marriage (over 40 percent in the general population and over 70 percent among non-Hispanic African Americans), and similar phenomenon continue to predict a breakdown of civility on the most fundamental level. We passed into the “Dark Ages” some time ago. The “Benedict Option” is already in place. It is in your parish and in your marriage. Every day you endure and succeed in a faithful union to your spouse and children is a heroic act of grace-filled living.
We are not promised that the Option will be successful as a civilizational cure. Such things are in the hands of God. But we should have no doubt about the Modern Project going on around us. It is not building a Brave New World. It is merely destroying the old one and letting its children roam amid the ruins.
From http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2015/05/05/marriage-as-a-lifetime-of-suffering/
I doubt the church teaches divorce for mental illness either people here made that up or are misinformed
If you meant emotional abuse or physical abuse say that
I also don't think you can divorce on a single case of abuse this does not fit with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ who taught us to lay down our lives for others and forgive others it is best to separate from such a person until they repent unless you suspect that person does not want to change then divorce is allowed