tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post2257500268560839456..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Touchy pointsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34907362163799391942010-05-20T12:26:45.637-04:002010-05-20T12:26:45.637-04:00Yes.
But, if you were divorced and asking to get...Yes. <br /><br />But, if you were divorced and asking to <i>get</i> married in the church, with the blessing of the Church, we would need to discuss the subject of a decree of nullity.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90701749865346629742010-05-20T10:01:07.520-04:002010-05-20T10:01:07.520-04:00If you are divorced and remarried can you be recei...If you are divorced and remarried can you be received into the Anglican Catholic Church?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17689907695782861662010-05-01T11:46:01.168-04:002010-05-01T11:46:01.168-04:00Yes.Yes.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64575227392882376712010-05-01T01:10:13.351-04:002010-05-01T01:10:13.351-04:00I have a simple question. If a person has been di...I have a simple question. If a person has been divorced but does not remarry, can that person be eligible for Holy Orders?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37622518757539663562009-01-29T00:32:00.000-05:002009-01-29T00:32:00.000-05:00Fr. Wells wrote about the bizarre consequences of ...Fr. Wells wrote about the bizarre consequences of two specific marriage cases:<BR/><BR/>1. Where a wedding took place in one R.C. diocese, and was witnessed by a priest from another R.C. diocese, nullity was declared on the basis that the celebrant had not obtained "faculties" (i.e., a license) from the Ordinary of the diocese in which the celebration took place.<BR/><BR/>This absurdity could not have occurred had the R.C.C. not declared, in the 17th Century if memory serves, that the weddings of Roman Catholics are not valid unless witnessed by Roman clergy (or unless that requirement is specially dispensed). This position creates two untenable results:<BR/><BR/>a. With this requirement, the R.C.C. took it upon itself to claim that marriages which were valid Sacraments one week, would not be valid Sacraments the following week even if entered into under identical conditions. This is precisely the foolish corner into which the R.C.C. painted itself in the 20th Century over the question of eating fish on Fridays (or, more accurately, of abstaining from meat on Fridays).<BR/><BR/>It doesn't take a degree in theology to figure out that if the Sacraments are ultimately traceable to Our Lord's institution, as they must be if they are guaranteed occasions of His Grace, and if a given set of circumstances give rise to such a Sacrament at one period in time, then those same circumstances must always give rise to that Sacrament.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the R.C.C.'s attempt to "desacralize" informal marriages was simply ultra vires and other Catholics should be very leery of any R.C. "annulments" that are predicated on that ground.<BR/><BR/>The silliness of the Roman position is further illustrated by the fact that the Romans apply this rule to their own members but claim non-Roman marriages, which would in Roman eyes not be Sacraments because not witnessed by a Roman Priest, are nontheless valid Sacraments. Talk about separating the condiments for the geese from those for the ganders.... <BR/><BR/>b. This dual-track concept utterly undercuts the concept of Matrimony as the Sacrament that is confected by the married couple itself. It attempts to elevate what is really a very possibly laudible rule of administration for maintaining vital statistics (i.e., the parish marriage registers) into a litmus test for validity.<BR/><BR/>(In this connection, some readers here may be unaware that for Roman Catholics, their baptismal records form the basis for a sort of personal dossier to which are added notations of subsequent events such as confirmation, marriage, religious profession, or ordinations. Whenever one of these events takes place, an official notification of it is sent to the parish of baptism.)<BR/><BR/>In the case cited by Fr. Wells, we (I mean Continuing Anglicans) would regard the "annulment" as invalid because the essential ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony -- the married couple itself -- was present in Philadelphia....<BR/><BR/>2. Fr. Wells also wrote of an ECUSA Bishop who signed his own decree of nullity. That one requires no specific Canon; it is a ancient maxim of the Civil Law -- to which family of legal systems the Canon Law belongs -- that "no man may be judge of his own cause". There's a long Latin version of that which I do not at the moment recall but perhaps Sandra McColl does.<BR/><BR/>So that one, too, was bogus.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29453581493361462142009-01-28T08:06:00.000-05:002009-01-28T08:06:00.000-05:00And my age I should know how spell "too."LKWAnd my age I should know how spell "too."<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91229942957179710162009-01-28T07:41:00.000-05:002009-01-28T07:41:00.000-05:00Excuse me. The similarity of the two situations sp...Excuse me. The similarity of the two situations sparked my interest. I probably shouldn't have posted that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43193819105420412892009-01-27T21:40:00.000-05:002009-01-27T21:40:00.000-05:00Bruce: Nope. Get out a map. "Not to far from Fl...Bruce: Nope. Get out a map. "Not to far from Florida" is not "in Florida."<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32817537668503976092009-01-27T19:26:00.000-05:002009-01-27T19:26:00.000-05:00"I am personally familiar with a case in a RC dioc..."I am personally familiar with a case in a RC diocese not to far from Florida...."<BR/><BR/>If by "not too far from Florida" you mean "in Florida" then I suspect that "Fr Leo" is my current continuuing priest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44875888390771600202009-01-26T08:12:00.000-05:002009-01-26T08:12:00.000-05:00The Romans themselves know and admit that their an...The Romans themselves know and admit that their annulment procedure is chaotic. The strangest example I have heard of was a certain application where no possible grounds of annulment could be discovered. The individual reapplied, whereupon it was learned that the wedding took place in Philadelphia, solemnised by a priest (uncle of the bride) from Chicago. The tribunal proceded to investigate whether said priest had obtained "faculties" from the Diocese of Philadephia. Conveniently, he had failed to do so. Declaration of nullity granted. Next case!<BR/><BR/>I am personally familiar with a case in a RC diocese not to far from Florida in which the priest who was head of the marriage tribunal himself decided to get married. When his bishop remonstrated, "But Fr Leo, I have no one in the diocese qualified to run the marriage tribunal," the dear priest explained that he had experienced a crisis of faith and no longer believed in marriage tribunals. The bishop thereupon said, "But you know the job so thoroughly; can't you just keep on until I get someone else trained?" So the priest, himself romantically involved, stayed at his desk signing off on annulments until Rome sent the paper-work granting his laicization.<BR/><BR/>And I have heard on very good authority<BR/>of a very traditional ECUSA bishop who actually signed his own "Decree of Nullity." There is no Canon to to contrary, is there?<BR/><BR/>It would be funny if it were no so sad. But fear not, little flock! We will get there soon enough.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26532651474487183842009-01-26T00:01:00.000-05:002009-01-26T00:01:00.000-05:00A few months ago I was told by an Anglican bishop ...A few months ago I was told by an Anglican bishop that, from now on, his policy on annulments would conform completely to Rome. <BR/><BR/>Sad.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47193048338154896892009-01-25T20:45:00.000-05:002009-01-25T20:45:00.000-05:00My pet one from the Romans is where an ex-Roman ma...My pet one from the Romans is where an ex-Roman marries a non-Roman in a non-Roman ceremony without first writing to the local Roman bishop to say he/she isn't a Roman any more. Apparently, if you go back to Rome in such circumstances, you need to get married again--or else you have a free ticket to go marry someone else. This is legalism gone feral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42719250972397600442009-01-25T00:56:00.000-05:002009-01-25T00:56:00.000-05:00The only real help we get from the general teachin...The only real help we get from the general teaching on sacraments, as it relates to validity in marriage, has to do with Intention. Furthermore, a Decree of Nullity on the basis of sacramental considerations to do with Form may be acceptable to American Roman Catholics, but they are just technical, legalistic excuses. <BR/><BR/>We have already addressed the topic of the sort of marriages that were not valid; and a merely sacramental consideration is not reason enough to decree Nullity. For, this involves as well "states of life", legal realities and moral-above all moral-decisions. Very technical matters of sacramental validity are not sufficient reasons to decree nullity, especially obvious when we consider that marriages between non-Christians are genuine and real, even though they only become sacramental after conversion and baptism. And, to use the fact that they had not been sacramentally married because their wedding was prior to conversion (for example) to decree nullity, is just plain wrong. Just as it is wrong when RC bishops grant annulments because the person married a "non-Catholic." These sham annulments are enough to gag a maggot.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10888086255986756702009-01-24T19:59:00.000-05:002009-01-24T19:59:00.000-05:00O.K., but I also understood that a decree of nulli...O.K., but I also understood that a decree of nullity wasn't a way of saying that the prior marriage, while sacramentally defective, in which one was doing one's best to be a faithful spouse, was mere 'fornication'.<BR/><BR/>In the Jewish law, the bride's unchastity prior to the event but only discovered afterwards was a vitiating factor, so I would accept that 'fornication' is a code word for 'prior vitiating factor' (which would include any defect in intention by either party), then the Church's system would appear to make sense. Simply dismissing a marriage that falls short of sacramentality as being 'fornication' doesn't harmonise with the other things I think I know about the subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70849228570591432412009-01-24T17:07:00.000-05:002009-01-24T17:07:00.000-05:00Already, in Chapter 18, Jesus was addressing how t...Already, in Chapter 18, Jesus was addressing how to do things in his Church that was yet to be built. So, it is not clear that he would have laid down rules according to the old wine in the old wine skins. <BR/><BR/>Yes, the non-virgin was sentenced to death in the Old Law, and so was the man who had intercourse with a betrothed woman (otherwise, if she was not engaged, there was no penalty; but the two having become one flesh already, had to get married). <BR/><BR/>But, these old laws, especially with a death sentence, cannot be put into the new wine skins. Therefore, the Church has seen these words as constituting a rule for Christians.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4203504761483548982009-01-24T16:51:00.000-05:002009-01-24T16:51:00.000-05:00Fr Hart: I wasn't suggesting that St Augustine's t...Fr Hart: I wasn't suggesting that St Augustine's teaching was necessarily doctrine on the matter, but that it seemed to be a better interpretation of Matt. 19:8, if not in fact the one that the audience of Jesus would have understood.<BR/><BR/>I know the ideal is that a non-widowed bride is a virgin, but from the bits I've picked up over the years (sorry for the lack of citation), I have understood that under Jewish law, the discovery that a non-widowed bride wasn't a virgin was cause to put here away (if not do away with her) there and then. And that's what 'fornication' was.<BR/><BR/>If the last paragraph is right, then I still await direction to the chain of reasoning and authority that gets from Matt. 19:8 to marriage tribunals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23389741021832041432009-01-24T15:38:00.000-05:002009-01-24T15:38:00.000-05:00Sandra:Not everything that St. Augustine opined ha...Sandra:<BR/><BR/>Not everything that St. Augustine opined has made its way into the Church's doctrine, and his interpretation of this is an example. The ideal is that a bride, on her wedding day, is a virgin or a widow. But, the Church cannot force real life into the ideal (Plato's ideal world is not the one we have). We have to bring healing to real people who have real pasts, in a world where everybody is a sinner. All I can see Augustine's interpretation lending itself to, in this time, is another excuse for divorce and sham annulments.<BR/><BR/>However, the interpretation I have offered is not my own, but simply the Western doctrine on the matter. And, the western doctrine seems to deal with the issue far better than what is <I>normally accepted in</I> the Orthodox Church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84935502792669075262009-01-24T08:05:00.000-05:002009-01-24T08:05:00.000-05:00As I understand it, the Matthean exception arises ...As I understand it, the Matthean exception arises from Jesus addressing an audience of Jews in the pre-Christian age, when Christian sacramental marriages hadn't happened yet, and that 'fornication' in that context really meant, on the part of the bride 'prior unchastity' (i.e., not being what the groom and his family had bargained for). I'm happy to be corrected on this, as I speak from what I've heard and can't give chapter, verse, or any other useful footnote--but I'd like correction to include chapter, verse or other useful footnote for Fr Hart's explanation.<BR/><BR/>St Augustine explains thus: 'But it is lawful for a man to put away his wife in case of fornication, because she herself hath refused to be a wife in that she keepeth not wedded-faith with her husband.' (Tract. 9 in Joannem).<BR/><BR/>This suggests that 'fornication' isn't to do with a fault in the marriage from which the wife is being put away ('a marriage that was no marriage, even though it may have been legal', as Fr Hart put it), but with infidelity on behalf of the wife.<BR/><BR/>As I said, happy to receive evidence to the contrary, but otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Fr Wells that Matt 19:8 is not the text to provide scriptural justification for marriage tribunals.<BR/><BR/>Oh, Fr Hollister: lovely to see a fellow lawyer shying away from legalism.<BR/><BR/>Finally, dear Fr Hart, you wrote: 'If I had ever been divorced/annuled and remarried, I think I would have disqualified myself, and would not have sought ordination.' I don't think one could really cross that bridge until one came to it, and, God being merciful, you didn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56104521155122280112009-01-23T10:40:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:40:00.000-05:00John wrote: "[I]f I change a couple of [Fr. Holli...John wrote: "[I]f I change a couple of [Fr. Hollister's] words I get the same sense of the reasoning behind WO and HO and that worries me: 'My own reaction, and I suspect that of some of our laymen and -women, is that clergy who have no understanding of what it is to be a woman could easily tend to be too legalistic and insufficiently pastoral in the considerations they bring to ordination cases. Why is this area different than any other in which a wounded healer may be called to practice?'<BR/><BR/>"... [S]omehow I come away after reading all this with the notion that DAR is not really a problem because we all have to live in our own realities and the truths of our time. Frank Griswold keeps coming to mind."<BR/><BR/>Again, with respect, while superficially this argument hangs together, when examined even just below its surface it is clearly a matter of apples and oranges. <BR/><BR/>The question whether a civilly-divorced and Sacramentally-remarried man may properly be ordained is a matter of behavior. As has previously been pointed out elsewhere, if the Episcopal Church is today able validly to ordain or consecrate anyone (a proposition I beg leave to doubt), then Vickie Gene Robinson is just as much a bishop as any of TEC's other bishops, indeed, just as much a bishop as is Rowan Williams, the man with whom all the Neo-Anglicans lust to be in communion. VGR is simply an unsuitable candidate, a bad example, and a man living an immoral lifestyle, but he is a TEC bishop for whatever a TEC bishop is worth.<BR/><BR/>The same is true of the clergy who have been incorrectly labelled "DAR" ("divorced and remarried") but who are more accurately described as "CD/SM" ["civilly divorced but now Sacramentally married"]. Once ordained, a man is a deacon, priest, or bishop forever and can validly function in those Offices, whether or not he actually should do so.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the dispute about the prior marital histories of clergy postulants is a prudential and policy question, although an important one, but it is not a Sacramental question.<BR/><BR/>The issue of so-called "women's ordination" is quite different. It is an ontological matter, not a prudential one. A woman cannot be ordained to the Apostolic Ministry, she can only be instituted to some new, non-Sacramental preaching office such as is used in Protestant church groups. Thus the validity or depth of anyone's "understanding of what it is to be a woman" is completely irrelevant to anything with which we are here concerned.<BR/><BR/>Nor is it reasonable, or fair, or even prudent to infer that being a woman is somehow to have sustained a wound. I certainly wouldn't want to go home to my wife right after having uttered such a sentiment.... <BR/><BR/>Nor is Frank Griswold, scary and depressing as he is, relevant to this discussion. Mr. Griswold's problem is precisely that he is unable to distinguish between what is real and what is someone's wishful thinking. While those reading or commenting on this board may differ among ourselves on the prudence or desirability of ordaining or consecrating men who have had prior civil or natural marriages, I doubt very much if any of us differ one whit in our commitment to having every one of our clergymen, regardless of his marital history, validly ordained so that we may approach the altar with the assurance that Our Lord is Really Present there. You may not like your Priest, you may wish the Vestry had not called your Priest, but he is still a Priest and he is still celebrating Mass. Ex opere operato and all that. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if we were to adopt Mr. Griswold's sacramental schizophrenia, we would have no such objective assurance. "Well, let's go to church this morning and roll the dice: maybe the Holy Spirit will decide to visit us today." Ex opere operantis ecclesiae, anyone?<BR/><BR/>And by the way: Do not be afraid that the Church will listen to the life experiences of actively practicing homosexuals, lesbians, etc., etc. It does so, and has done so from its inception, just as it listens to the experiences of all other members of the PAECGLS community who care to talk to it, including most especially the undersigned. We even have a formal name for that "listening process"; we call it "Confession". <BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21854933933651157222009-01-22T22:00:00.000-05:002009-01-22T22:00:00.000-05:00“My own reaction, and I suspect that of some of ou...“My own reaction, and I suspect that of some of our laymen and -women, is that clergy who have no personal experience of the trauma of divorce could easily tend to be too legalistic and insufficiently pastoral in the considerations they bring to marriage cases. Why is this area different than any other in which a wounded healer may be called to practice?” <BR/><BR/>With no disrespect to Fr. Hollister if I change a couple of his words I get the same sense of the reasoning behind WO and HO and that worries me:<BR/>“My own reaction, and I suspect that of some of our laymen and -women, is that clergy who have no understanding of what it is to be a woman could easily tend to be too legalistic and insufficiently pastoral in the considerations they bring to ordination cases. Why is this area different than any other in which a wounded healer may be called to practice?”<BR/><BR/>I know I am not smart enough to get that the bible may mean other than what it says (husband of one wife) but some how I come away after reading all this with the notion that DAR is not really a problem because we all have to live in our own realities and the truths of our time. Frank Griswold keeps coming to mind. <BR/><BR/>And if we are to subject our clergy to such knee-jerk a priori judgments, we'd better start sneaking into their dining rooms with rulers to measure the liquid levels in their decanters, and auditing their check books, and ....<BR/><BR/>This also reminds me about the same logic about sneaking into consenting adults bedrooms and judging them whether hetro or homo or married or not (not necessarily to each other) as long as consensual. Strikes me as situational ethics.<BR/><BR/>perplexed,<BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11921439995315137492009-01-22T16:57:00.000-05:002009-01-22T16:57:00.000-05:00Someone wrote:Divorce seems to have no exception o...Someone wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Divorce seems to have no exception other than adultery so lets get to brass tacks: if a Bishop has taken another wife except she be an adulteress should that man lead Christ's flock?</I><BR/><BR/>As I wrote in the article, the Matthean Exception is not about adultery, unless a pattern of adultery reveals that one of the parties never intended to be married, that is, by the full Christian definition. I interpret your question to mean that a bishop has married a divorced woman, and in that case he would be guilty of living in sin. So, he would have to deposed from the sacred ministry, or quit.<BR/><BR/>Let us be straight here. Divorce and remarriage is always adultery, and the only exception recognized by the Church is the Matthean Exception. In such a case, in the eyes of the Church, there has been no remarriage, but only a first true marriage. The Mattehan Exception is not about adultery (except for the pattern I described), but about fornication-a marriage that was no marriage, even though it may have been legal. Therefore, the condemnation of remarriage does not apply to cases where a decree of Nullity has been properly granted. What came before was an affair, a time of fornication. St. Augustine had a mistress for years prior to his conversion, and an illegitimate son. <BR/><BR/>However, as I have been saying all along, the problem is not a canonical, that is to say, legal one; it is a pastoral one, and also has to do with evangelism. The problem, therefore, is one of credibility. I cannot prove that the system has been abused in any specific case; but, I know what it does to the credibility of our collective witness if it becomes a scandal.<BR/><BR/>If I had ever been divorced/annuled and remarried, I think I would have disqualified myself, and would not have sought ordination. I do not have any right or authority to apply that to others. For others, I must trust the Church and the bishops, unless I have knowledge in any specific case that the system was abused. Perhaps, as I wrote, certain individuals <I>might</I> do well to step down from their positions, if they find that their own cases are troubling to the laity in general.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12657447202363186252009-01-22T11:13:00.000-05:002009-01-22T11:13:00.000-05:00Sandra McColl wrote: "[W]hen I go to get my sins ...Sandra McColl wrote: "[W]hen I go to get my sins absolved, I enlist the services of a sinner--not deliberately, it's just that sinners are all that God provides. Let's not concentrate on the pasts of the clergy but on the future of the young, and let's do all that can be done to avoid them contracting marriage unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly."<BR/><BR/>Thank you for saying this. We needed to hear it. It is the "crextux" and "gravidum" [the two successive veriwords] of the situation....<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11099480035637561182009-01-22T10:53:00.000-05:002009-01-22T10:53:00.000-05:00Father Wells, with whom I usually agree across the...Father Wells, with whom I usually agree across the board, wrote several comments that I feel deserve further exploration and consideration:<BR/><BR/>1. "While I grasp and accept [the] distinction between ... 'annulment' and 'declaration of nullity,' ... I do not quite grasp how this distinction helps the Church in her witness to the indissolubility of marriage."<BR/><BR/>It helps us teach people that while it is highly desirable to maintain the stability of unions that are only natural or civil in nature -- as witness Fr. Wells' own moving description of the disruptions divorces cause in the lives of vulnerable adolescents -- nevertheless, the Church is a sacramental institution and it is ultimately on the indissolubility of sacramental marriages that our teaching must focus.<BR/><BR/>2. "This whole discussion takes place in the context of a culture war. The institution of marriage is under assault on many fronts."<BR/><BR/>And one of the Church's major weapons in this war is the sacramental grace from which married couples benefit when they have confected proper CHristian marriages. That, however, is a matter of premarital instruction, and as such cannot diminish our pastoral responsibilities to those who come to us with histories of marital injury. We still need to help those unfortunate people heal.<BR/><BR/>3. As to the young military officer who Fr. Wells described, we will never know whether he would have drawn the proper lesson had the response to his question been, "Yes, I have been divorced; it is an experience no one should have to undergo, and that is why I am using this time to give you the best instruction I can under the circumstances. I am also deeply grateful that for the Church's teaching that has helped me deal with that traumatic event."<BR/><BR/>As I said, we will never know what this young man's reaction would have been had Fr. Wells had to give him a different answer, but if he had been insufficiently intelligent to draw the correct conclusion, I would shudder for the welfare of the troops entrusted to him.<BR/><BR/>(Given Fr. Wells' description of the young man's actual upbringing, I feel it would probably be a privilege to serve under him.)<BR/><BR/>4. "When you see the honor roll student suddenly failing courses, the situation is not remedied by a marriage tribunal granting a 'decree of nullity.'"<BR/><BR/>No, it is not. However, that is not the purpose of a decree of nullity. It is after that same high school student has made a disasterous marriage, had that marriage collapse, later turned to the Church to help rebuild his or her life, and more maturely chosen a suitable life partner, that the declaration of nullity may loom a great deal larger.<BR/><BR/>5. "Our practice has largely been a scandal, in which sin has solemnly condoned with winks and nods."<BR/><BR/>Who is "we" in this respect? I still remember the many times I watched the late Abp. Stephens pacing around his living room, literally sweating, stopping every so often to fall to his knees in prayer, as he agonized over a petition for a declaration of nullity, acutely conscious that one day he would stand before Our Lord to give a personal account of how he had shepherded his portion of Our Lord's flock.<BR/><BR/>6. "The Roman Church charges large fees and has turned this into a source of revenue."<BR/><BR/>If this be true, it is still irrelevant to our internal operations and concerns. What is one more Roman error to us, when it is piled on top of the long history of such things?<BR/><BR/>7. "The Holy See has expressed concern over the fact that the USA has a disproportionate number of annulments."<BR/><BR/>And the "Holy See's" bureaucracy is almost exclusively staffed by peoople who have no personal experience of marriage. Thus a U.S. Roman Catholic could quite reasonably conclude that Rome has not only a substantial ignorance of but also a bias against legitimate investigations of sacramental histories and therefore that its pronouncements on the subject need to be taken with a dose of salt.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying this attitude actually exists out there in the R.C. parishes, for I do not know, but I could certainly understand if it did.<BR/><BR/>8. "'Bill wants to be a postulant? And he has been married once already? Well, he needs an annulment and we will help get him one.'" <BR/><BR/>And Bill gets some training in the theology of matrimony, as do, a bit more diffusely, his immediate family, friends, and members of his home parish. And this is harmful exactly how?<BR/><BR/>9. "I am sure than in certain cases a declaration of nullity is justified."<BR/><BR/>I would hope so, just as I would hope that we can trust our Bishops to do the jobs for which they have received the graces of Consecration and for which they will ultimately answer at their judgements. I cannot speak for any jurisdiction other than my own, but over the years I have acted as proctor, consultant, and assessor in a disproportionate number of such cases (that is, disproportionate compared to the membership of any parish with which I have been associated) and I have never found a single one of our bishops who has taken them lightly.<BR/><BR/>10. "In my view a Declaration of Nullity is purely for getting married. Such a declaration should have no place in the ordination process."<BR/><BR/>Setting up a dual standard, one for clergy and one for the laity, undercuts our teaching on the nature of matrimony as one Sacrament that is applicable to clergy and laity alike. It also tends to undermine the laity's confidence in the legitimacy of all declarations of nullity. Just imagine the "coffee hour" questions that would result were we to bar men from Orders because of sacramentally invalid prior marriages:<BR/><BR/>"Father, I'm really confused. The Commission on Ministry just rejected Bill as a postulant because 30 years ago he was briefly married, but the bishop said that wasn't a valid marriage and permitted him to marry Marge, and we all know what a good marriage they have. Now last year you arranged for an annulment for my niece Suzy after her trouble with that awful hockey player. Now she's happily married to Greg and we're all just so grateful for that but if the bishop's judgement was only good enough for a laywoman but not for a clergyman, how can it really be good for anything?"<BR/><BR/>I'm old enough to remember the damage the Roman Church inflicted when one week it told its members that while last Friday it had been a mortal sin to eat meat, this Firday and henceforth it would be O.K. I would hate to see us repeat that error of inconsistency, just as I am firmly convinced that we do not need to erect any "class system" barriers to our teaching on the theology of marriage, which is already difficult enough.<BR/><BR/>11. "Over thirty years ago our Church succumbed to WO, out of pressure from the secular culture, in surrender to the Zeitgeist. Sadly, we have not mounted much resistance to the same forces when it comes to marriage discipline. Defining the canonical language does not help very much."<BR/><BR/>Apples and oranges. There is no theological justification for monkeying around with the ontological realities of the Church's ordained ministry. That is a completely separate issue from the practical and theoretical urgency of teaching our people a sound and comprehensive theology of marriage.<BR/><BR/>12. "There was a time when a divorce history automatically excluded a man from the ordination process. No one was interested in the details or the extenuating circumstances."<BR/><BR/>There was also a time when illegitimate birth excluded a man from the ordination process. Fortunately, we have moved beyond that.<BR/><BR/>"It was clearly grasped that a priest or bishop with a divorce history, no matter how fine a priest or bishop he may be, can never be a credible witness to the Biblical teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. ... The man who signs declarations of nullity surely should not need one for himself."<BR/><BR/>My own reaction, and I suspect that of some of our laymen and -women, is that clergy who have no personal experience of the trauma of divorce could easily tend to be too legalistic and insufficiently pastoral in the considerations they bring to marriage cases. Why is this area different than any other in which a wounded healer may be called to practice?<BR/><BR/>And if we are to subject our clergy to such knee-jerk a priori judgments, we'd better start sneaking into their dining rooms with rulers to measure the liquid levels in their decanters, and auditing their check books, and ....<BR/><BR/>I suspect my hypothetical coffee hour interlocutor (who is not actually completely fictional) would feel a good deal more comforted if he knew the bishop who had considered Suzy's case had done so out of a backround of personal understanding rather than just text book theory. Ministers can only minister out of their own individual personhood, which includes their own personal experiences.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83192004279266474052009-01-22T09:11:00.000-05:002009-01-22T09:11:00.000-05:00"I am not aware of DAAR bishops being out of propo..."I am not aware of DAAR bishops being out of proportion to the population, except in two small jurisdictions. "<BR/><BR/>Forgive me Father for belaboring this but all the CC jurisdictions are small, some more so than others but non seems to exceeds 10-12k and as Mr. Tighe has reported 1 had about 600 (UECNA) at the time of his study some years ago. <BR/><BR/>Your comment strikes me as a bit insular because I read on one hand that after the departure of a diocese from one jurisdiction to another there was a near immediate announcement of concordat and impending reunion among 3. The DAR Bishops involved in the consecration of new UECNA bishops will also be bishops in the new entity. So I do not think the exception as you frame it (EXCEPT in two small jurisdictions) applies unless of course those jurisdictions have no intention of becoming one. If reunion occurs the exception dissolves and the proportion changes and the question will then involve all in the new jurisdiction. I do not think you can have it both ways.<BR/><BR/>The only specific remarks from the Fathers I have found regarding D / DAR are from Chromtatius, Theodoret and Chrysostom and all condemn remarriage. Obviously as you point out, many of these men never married so DAR, as need be applied for the greater standard of the ordained, would hardly have required a lot of ink. Your answer strikes me as leaning towards one based on silence and I wonder since you point out that that things were not neat and tidy are we making assumptions from silence rather than the plain read of Scripture? Isn't that the same trap proponents of WO and HO have fallen into finding permission where no explicit warrant can be found (the standard for explicit warrant being higher than the standard for ordination in that case) ? If the Scripture is not specific on some exact variation then it is permissible? <BR/><BR/>Divorce seems to have no exception other than adultery so lets get to brass tacks: if a Bishop has taken another wife except she be an adulteress should that man lead Christ's flock? <BR/><BR/> Yes or No? Can we have a simple pole of the respondents in this thread? <BR/><BR/>Do we or don't we agree that the early church- that is to say the Fathers speaking in Council would intend to approve of a Bishop leaving his wife because he found another more desirous woman and then be allowed to remarry? <BR/><BR/>I can live without neat and tidy but I fail to see how license for DAR among clergy, especially after conversion, can be granted based on silence or tidiness in light of Scripture and when we live in a society that is wrecked by divorce.<BR/><BR/>From another angle should "Catholics" mimic Protestants on this issue? I have read that there is no statistical difference between Protestant clergy and that of Protestant laity concerning DAR. If we have the same or similar statistic is that not an outward sign of an inward state and I mean to say does not such a condition call Catholicity into question, especially sensitive or tender lay people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4531199916863660132009-01-22T07:55:00.000-05:002009-01-22T07:55:00.000-05:00Fr Hart: I think we have been talking past each o...Fr Hart: I think we have been talking past each other concerning Matt. 19:8 and marriage tribunals. Yes, the text (at least as we find it in KJV) leads rather directly to such ecclesiastical machinery. That I grant you. My point, however, is that IF one is called on for a Biblical justification of such procedures, Matt 19:8 would not serve well to make the case. The disciplinary/pastoral authority of the apostles is much more convincingly shown elsewhere, in both Acts and the Pauline Epistles.<BR/><BR/>As I have pointed out already, Matt 19:8 is a shakey text in the manuscripts, with a number of variant readings. It therefore cannot prove much. Those who appeal to it will have to account for the parallel text in Mark<BR/>10:11, a far more secure text in the manuscripts, which grants no such exception at all.<BR/><BR/>The scribes had a tendency to water down the actual words of our Lord, whenever they came upon a hard saying. Another "Matthean exception" is Matt. 5:22, where He said, "everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." Some generous scribe helpfully added the words "without a cause," surely out of pastoral compassion to human frailty and as a concession to our fallen nature. Since we live in a culture saturated with anger, Christians too will be occasionally involved in anger. My point is that if you seek a license for justifed anger, it's better not to rely on a variant reading. <BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com