Couples wedding in the Roman Catholic Church essentially make the same pledge to one another. According to the Rite of Marriage (#25) the customary text in English is:[4]
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honour you all the days of my life.In the United States, Catholic wedding vows may also take the following form:[4]
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.The priest will then say aloud "You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide. Amen."[5]
Even if the vows do not include that promise, if a woman never intended to submit or obey her husband because she has a different "model of authority" in mind, what recourse does the man have?
It seems to me that Latin rules concerning annulment could apply, as it could be argued that the bride did not understand her duties, or that the groom was deceived according to the marital fitness of the bride. Canons 1095 to 1096 do not talk about what the duties are of each party, though this is probably assumed by the canonical tradition. Would it be helpful if they were explicitly stated in a footnote or something? Probably.
I need a canon lawyer to check my reasoning above.
A declaration of nullity may therefore be one recourse a man has if he finds the woman he married refuses to obey him.
If Latins do not think that annulment is possible for such cases, then what about divorce (and remarriage)? Some Latins may say that even in such cases, divorce is not justifiable. The man should show "sacrificial" love to facilitate her conversion. But it's not her conversion that matters so much for marital well-being as her respect. If she does not respect him (and obey him), why should she respect his "sacrificial" love? These same Latins would probably say that a woman's disrespect for the man is not a sufficient grounds for divorce, either. I have to disagree.
Maybe someone alpha could tame the shrew and win her over to being submissive, but how often does that happen, that a recalcitrant woman is able to deceive an alpha and get him to marry her?
I don't deny that men should practice due diligence and be able to spot red flags in the behavior of a woman, and even exercise some measure of authority in a relationship before they get married to test her submissiveness, but what if that is not enough, especially if the courtship is short? What if she is able to deceive him until he finally puts a ring on it, and then lets her true self come out? What is a man to do in that case?
I am excluding for the purposes of discussion of women who were raised with bad models of being a wife because of her home life or because of the mass media or have been trained to have an aggressive, fempowered mindset and attitude, but are willing to try to change. She should be given that chance, and men should exercise patience with their authority and solicitude. But if she gives up in her struggle with pride and self-love? Then this discussion will apply to her as well.
Why should a husband coerce her obedience, even if that action were permissible? Why not be rid of a troublesome woman and be free to marry another? Would Latins concede that the lack of proper respect is a form of abuse against the man, or do they need manifest disrespect rather than the lack of obedience? And how many of them would go along with secular feminist standards of what constitutes abuse by the man? Wouldn't giving commands to the wife be seen as a form of unjust domination by men?
Could it be that divorce is permissible not only in cases of porneia, but when one partner fails to live up to his or her duties for the marriage? Adultery is just one form of not playing by the rules a husband and wife should adhere to.
As for sacramental theology concerning marriage, I note that the Assyrians do not consider marriage/matrimony to be a "sacrament" as Latins understand the term. Is there a room within the Byzantine tradition for questioning whether matrimony is one of the holy mysteries of the Church, on par with Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist? Is it because of the influence of the West that the Chalcedonian Orthdox began to identify matrimony as a mystery/sacrament? The list of 7 for Chalcedonian Orthodox dates back to the 15th decree of The Confession of Dositheus from the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672)? Is this universally accepted by Chalcedonian Orthodox as binding upon Orthodox Christians? I note that in the list of decrees that there is no definition given for "sacrament" or "mystery" -- must a Latin one be assumed?
What is the standard or dominant Latin position on why marriage is to be considered a sacrament? The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath.111 which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant.112
This is similar to the thinking of Latins with regards to Holy Orders, I think:
I don't think this is a dominant opinion within Byzantine sacramental theology, if an opinion at all, but I think the argument for a priest participating in Christ in this way is stronger (even if I am tending to reject it because I think it is flawed) than the argument that a husband and wife participate in the relationship of Christ and the Church. As our Lord never married a woman, a Christian husband and wife cannot participate in that marriage. But they can participate in the "mystical marriage" of Christ to the Church? Is there a true ontological analogy between human marriage and the mystical marriage of Christ to the Church? Or is the word "marriage" being used of Christ and the Church as a different form of analogy, closer to a metaphor?
1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23
1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.26 In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.27
- It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24 Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25
I also note that the definition of sacraments as "efficacious signs of grace" apparently originates with St. Augustine and developed by Latin theologians over time. Contemporary explanations of the Holy Mysteries seem to be imitating Latin explanations, though without necessarily using Augustine's definition. (Here is one by a Greek Orthodox priest, for example.) In Latin parlance, is there anything about marriage which requires an "additional grace" for the husband and wife that they have not already received through Christian initiation and the Eucharist? Is there anything besides the conjugal act and procreation? Does the conjugal act itself need to be sanctified by an additional "grace" that goes beyond Christian initiation? What about the procreative aspect of marriage? Begetting a child in itself does not take away the necessity of the child being initiated into Christ as a matter of his salvation.
One could say there is a need for a ritual "correction" or "sanctification" of marriage after the fall of Adam and Eve. But is it necessary that such a "purification" to be a sacrament in itself rather than a consecration and blessing by the Church?
iirc, Latins believe that the sacramental bond of marriage, which comes into existence with the consent of the two parties, can only be dissolved by the death of one partner (which is why the surviving spouse can enter into another [sacramental] marriage). The Byzantines tend to think that the marriage bond is not dissolved at death, but is the Byzantine understanding of the marriage bond the same as how the Latins understand it to be a "sacramental bond"? Perhaps it is, as even in the case of divorce and remarriage, the second marriage is not considered "sacramental." But how far back in the Byzantine tradition does this opinion go?
Both Latin and Byzantine claims about indissolubility depend upon their interpretation of Christ's words (Matthew 19:8-9) and Christ's marriage to the Church. But if there is only One Bride to whom all of mankind is called to be incorporated, how could Christ marry another? And while this mystical union between Christ and all those who have been born and died in Him and will be raised up with Him is eternal, why should the same be true of the marriage between a man and a woman as well? I think even at the minimum, people will agree that husband and wife will remain friends (and brother and sister in Christ) in the New Creation is consummated. But will they remain "husband" and "wife"? Some may interpret Matthew 22:30 or Luke 20:34-6 as denying that they will still be "married" or "husband" and "wife" but I think that is to go beyond what the text says, which is that in the world to come there will not be marriages taking place. Christ's words do not imply that marriages contracted (an instance of Latin diction here, I know) before the Day of Judgment will come to an end or the bonds are dissolved.
I wouldn't dispute that for men and women there should be be a marital bond with just one another -- though how one is to reconcile with the Divine oikonomia with respect to polygamy and the question of whether the bonds those patriarchs had with their many wives were dissolved or not may be difficult. One solution might be to claim the marriages were not "sacramental." But are they still united as husband and wives?
No, the concern is what is to be done when people, in this particular case women, do not live up to their duties in marriage and do not seem willing to change or be corrected, and what are conditions for a marriage to exist. In Latin terms, what are the conditions for a valid contract?
Could it be argued that Ephesians 5 (or 1 Peter 3) merely gives norms and not obligations? Maybe one finds the talk of "obligations" too legalistic. But if one consistently fails to live up to those obligations, to the point where the other spouse is negatively affected (i.e. some form of abuse)? What should be the consequences and remedies?
Eastern Catholics, due to Latin influence, have a process for declaring nullity. But do the Orthodox? Or is that left up to each individual jurisdiction, to create its own procedures for rendering judgment? I doubt they would just issue a ecclesial decree of divorce because it may be easier just to do so.
For those who have been sincere before they got married but decided to embrace sin and rebelliousness, an annulment may not be possible -- if spouses can get an ecclesial divorce in the case of physical abandonment, why not in the case of psychological or moral abandonment as well? Perhaps it may be necessary for Chalcedonian Orthodox to regularize their procedures and make them publicly known as well.
Do men need to explicitly ask prospective brides in front of a witness (the presbyter, for example, or their parents) whether she will submit to his authority and give a definitive answer one way or another? At least if she fails to comply then he can build a cause for deceit and fraud. In this time where social expectations for marriage, even among Christians, have fallen considerably, maybe Christian men need to resort to such testimonies in front of witnesses so that they can protect themselves.
And if we were to be thorough regarding Christian men -- maybe they would have to make such assurances, either in front of the woman's father/male guardian or in front of male members of his community, so that they can hold him responsible or testify on behalf of the woman in front of those with authority.
Additional questions:
1. If an ecclesial divorce dissolves any continuing obligations or responsibilities on the part of the injured party to the errant party in this world, does it dissolve the obligations and responsibilities of the errant or injuring party as well?
2. If an ecclesial divorce removes the obligations of both parties, then in what meaningful sense can it be said that they are still "married," sacramentally or otherwise? What sort of bond still exists, and how do we describe it "ontologically"?
Related:
TESTIMONY TO THE POWER OF GRACE:ON THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE DEBATE CONCERNING THE CIVILLY REMARRIED AND THE SACRAMENTS* of Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller
No comments:
Post a Comment