Author Topic: The Myth of Schism  (Read 16501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,286
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2011, 10:14:45 PM »
I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  ;D

It's not false! I've been reading the early church fathers and christian witnesses of the first 4 to 5 centuries for 14 years now and most of that time was back when I was still protestant. I agree with Fr. John Rominades and all the other Orthodox names that Bently Hart hates and is fighting against.

Is Mr. Hart addressing the 4th to 5th centuries? Are are you convinced, somehow, the "Schism" goes back that far in time?

Quote
Rominades and the others are faithful witnesses to Eastern Christian Patristics while Bently Hart is not. If Bently Hart wants to be Roman Catholic then why doesn't he just jump ship?


Bently Hart just made it to my "ignore list" or "someone to attack list". Now, I like Roman Catholics, but I'm not gonna favor Rome against the Eastern Christian tradition. The Eastern Christian tradition needs to be protected at all costs!

I can't decide which one is more saddening; that you ignore people you don't agree with, or that you keep a list of people you plan to attack.

The way some people speak of "The Eastern Christian Tradition" feels too much like it's its own religion...

I'll throw my lot in with Hart on this one, he's a breath of fresh air and I think hits a little to close to home for those who've made themselves comfortable with the grand myth of "us" vs. "them" and "East" vs. "West" and all the caricatures that involves.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2011, 10:50:28 PM »
I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  ;D

It's not false! I've been reading the early church fathers and christian witnesses of the first 4 to 5 centuries for 14 years now and most of that time was back when I was still protestant. I agree with Fr. John Rominades and all the other Orthodox names that Bently Hart hates and is fighting against.

Is Mr. Hart addressing the 4th to 5th centuries? Are are you convinced, somehow, the "Schism" goes back that far in time?

Quote
Rominades and the others are faithful witnesses to Eastern Christian Patristics while Bently Hart is not. If Bently Hart wants to be Roman Catholic then why doesn't he just jump ship?


Bently Hart just made it to my "ignore list" or "someone to attack list". Now, I like Roman Catholics, but I'm not gonna favor Rome against the Eastern Christian tradition. The Eastern Christian tradition needs to be protected at all costs!

I can't decide which one is more saddening; that you ignore people you don't agree with, or that you keep a list of people you plan to attack.

The way some people speak of "The Eastern Christian Tradition" feels too much like it's its own religion...

I'll throw my lot in with Hart on this one, he's a breath of fresh air and I think hits a little to close to home for those who've made themselves comfortable with the grand myth of "us" vs. "them" and "East" vs. "West" and all the caricatures that involves.

I don't think that the late Father Romanides is 'hated' by Hart and I suspect that he would not be comfortable with the caricatures of the great 'us' versus 'them' that some like to perpetuate and characterize in their crusades against 'ecumenism' It should startle no one that academics studying the same subjects and writing about the same historical events could reach somewhat different conclusions on important issues. Challenging the small 'o' orthodoxies within big 'O' Orthodoxy is often misunderstood and subject to emotional reactions.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 10:52:32 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2011, 12:21:33 AM »
2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......

But it doesn't fit and David Hart's argumentation is unbalanced.

 1.  There have been 12 Meetings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  This was established by the Holy See and the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

2.   There have been 21 Meetings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

 :) :) :) :) :) :)

Which of course many here, if not most, say are wastes of time and their conclusions are meaningless...in point of fact.

So you seem to be out of balance with your usual approach to these useless meetings.

I wonder if you are aware of the topics which have been discussed by the Joint International Commission?

The latest topic, that of a universal primacy, is doing wonders in bringing the Orthodox to focus on our acceptance on our non-acceptance of any man or any Church holding such a role in the Church.

It's all good.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2011, 12:32:27 AM »
Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.

Well, then do you think that you could discuss what he has written and not merely launch personal attacks against him?

I would be cautious about this man and his opinions.  I asked on the clergy list and nobody knew of him except two priests who said:  Isn't he Roman Catholic?  So I think that the article billing him as an "Orthodox theologian" may be a bit of wishful thinking.  I see his credentials as important because unless he writes as a member of the Orthodox Church (which he twice  calls "a communion"[sic!] )  his opinions are of little relevance as a reference for the Orthodox.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2011, 12:38:58 AM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2011, 01:50:04 AM »
David Bently Hart:

"Anyone familiar with the Eastern Christian world knows that the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church is often a curious mélange of fact, fantasy, cultural prejudice, sublime theological misunderstanding, resentment, reasonable disagreement, and unreasonable dread: it sees a misty phantasmagoria of crusades, predestination, “modalism,” a God of wrath, flagellants, Grand Inquisitors, and those blasted Borgias."

And balancing that:

"I must remark that the greater miscalculation of what divides us is almost inevitably found on the Catholic side, not always entirely free of a certain unreflective condescension. Often Western Christians, justifiably offended by the hostility with which their advances are met by certain Orthodox, assume that the greatest obstacle to reunion is Eastern immaturity and divisiveness."

http://davidbhart.blogspot.com/2006/03/david-b-hart-future-of-papacy-and_25.html

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2011, 08:22:47 AM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 08:23:57 AM by podkarpatska »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2011, 09:36:47 AM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2011, 10:32:05 AM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2011, 10:41:12 AM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.


Some will of course but there will be many who will continue to want to work through the annulment process and use the guidance of the Catholic Church to move into the next phases of their lives. 

I would expect the first ones at your door to be those who have been turned away from the annulment process.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 04:37:59 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.


You are right, the sad fact is that both the Orthodox and the Romans have too high an incidence of divorce, much more so than a generation or so ago when I was growing up. I suppose that regardless of what we call the process, more pastoral attention ought to go into marriage preparation and working to solve family problems. Easier said than done however.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2011, 05:44:51 PM »
I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.


Some will of course but there will be many who will continue to want to work through the annulment process and use the guidance of the Catholic Church to move into the next phases of their lives. 

I would expect the first ones at your door to be those who have been turned away from the annulment process.

I believe that in the States Catholic annulments are running at 60,000 a year and that 97% of annulment applications are successful.

That would leave a mere 3% who might turn up on Orthodox church doorsteps when union with Rome is accomplished.  No guarantee that the Orthodox dioceses will gave this 3% divorces though.

Of course once Roman Catholics, after union, have the option of an Orthodox divorce, they may eschew the annulment process and prefer a church divorce and second marriage.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.


You are right, the sad fact is that both the Orthodox and the Romans have too high an incidence of divorce, much more so than a generation or so ago when I was growing up. I suppose that regardless of what we call the process, more pastoral attention ought to go into marriage preparation and working to solve family problems. Easier said than done however.
Indeed! on all counts.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #62 on: June 06, 2011, 05:49:19 PM »
"Using these figures alone, the divorce rate [Greek Orthodox, States] would be 14% of the total Orthodox marriages, falling far below the US national average of approximately 43%."

This concerns Greek Orthodox in the States but I can imagine that obtaining data is not an easy task.

http://www.helleniccomserve.com/divorceperspective.html

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2011, 10:47:58 AM »
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  :) )

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2011, 11:29:19 AM »
Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile:) )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2011, 11:32:21 AM »
Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile:) )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Clearly there are not as many true marriages as one might think. 

Anyone have any figures on the fidelity rates of husbands and wives in Catholic marriages.  In almost all of the Catholic divorces I know it was the man who strayed. 

Since the flood divorce in the latter part of the 20th century the Catholic Church has done more to work on preparing young people for marriage.  When there is great resistance to the preparation, I have seen priest after priest simply refuse to marry the two.  That does not mean that they never marry or marry in the Church but it does mean that it is not as easy as it once was the gloss the early warning signals...and believe me those warning signs are all over the place in a truly unfortunate pairing.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2011, 01:37:42 PM »
Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
Did he make this absolute statement? I didn't see it.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,782
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2011, 01:47:46 PM »
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  :) )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2011, 02:03:58 PM »
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  :) )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.


I trust you forgot the wink?

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2011, 04:08:47 PM »
Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  :) )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.
not when it is twisting vice into virute.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Clearly there are not as many true marriages as one might think.  

Anyone have any figures on the fidelity rates of husbands and wives in Catholic marriages.  In almost all of the Catholic divorces I know it was the man who strayed.

Since the flood divorce in the latter part of the 20th century the Catholic Church has done more to work on preparing young people for marriage.  When there is great resistance to the preparation, I have seen priest after priest simply refuse to marry the two.  That does not mean that they never marry or marry in the Church but it does mean that it is not as easy as it once was the gloss the early warning signals...and believe me those warning signs are all over the place in a truly unfortunate pairing.
At least your last paragraph is true.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 04:21:21 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...
As it has been mired in heresy for at least nearly a millenium, that's possible.  But Christ founded His Church more than "many many centuries" ago.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,538
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2011, 05:35:59 PM »
Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile:) )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!

The truly funny thing, to me, is that King Henry VIII actually had a pretty clear case for annulment under the the guidelines of the Roman Church of his own time.  Had his brother's widow been anyone other than Catherine of Aragon the annulment would have been approved.

Of course, if we are operating under the assumption of a modern system for annulment we'd have to assume modern world politics as well- thus there would be no Holy Roman Emperor to bar the process, there is no king of France, and the King of Spain would scandalize the world by imposing himself into not only a religious matter but the relationship of another sovereign ruler of a constitutional monarchy.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,436
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,260
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2011, 07:59:51 PM »
2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.

It's pretty amazing to me how often the acting-in-bad-faith accusation is made in ecumenical relations in general.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
If that were the goal, you all could acknowledge the divorce, without the corrosive effect of Corban.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Myth of Schism
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2011, 09:21:40 PM »
Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile:) )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!

The truly funny thing, to me, is that King Henry VIII actually had a pretty clear case for annulment under the the guidelines of the Roman Church of his own time.  Had his brother's widow been anyone other than Catherine of Aragon the annulment would have been approved.

Of course, if we are operating under the assumption of a modern system for annulment we'd have to assume modern world politics as well- thus there would be no Holy Roman Emperor to bar the process, there is no king of France, and the King of Spain would scandalize the world by imposing himself into not only a religious matter but the relationship of another sovereign ruler of a constitutional monarchy.

That's why so-called 'alternative history' bores me. The real thing is much more fascinating!

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid.  
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

I agree in the sense that the Catholic Church is, shudder, shudder, using a form of 'economia' in the modern use of the annulment process. Since they boxed themselves into a quasi-dogmatic corner centuries ago on the issue when neither eastern ecclesiastical divorces or western annulments were the norm, changing life-styles in the modern world required a 'reboot' so to speak.

As to the proof required by a marriage tribunal, does anyone have a Roman Canon Law understanding of the annulment process and the specific justifications used to determine that a marriage was 'null and void' ab initio? The adbridged version would suffice.

The bolded section cited by Wyatt, to say the least, strikes me as a perversion of the legal maxim  'res ipsa loquitur'. It is about as bold a statement as 'I know you are dead because you are dead.' Yes, that is a truth but...so what? There has to be more, I would think.

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question? I make that assumption because that is the civil law result when a court of law annuls a marriage in most states. Of course the statutory grounds for a civil annulment are very narrow and would not likely be applicable in Canon Law proceedings or else the numbers of such Canon Law annulments would be much smaller than is reported in the US.  Thank you!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:32:21 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place

This seems rather personal.   Many people are willing to admit that they were not committed in the first place.  I have no idea what your circumstances were but you can't judge the entire process as wanting.  I am always amused that time and money are often cited as the "glue" of marriage.  I don't think I would ever be able to marry time or money.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid.  
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

I agree in the sense that the Catholic Church is, shudder, shudder, using a form of 'economia' in the modern use of the annulment process. Since they boxed themselves into a quasi-dogmatic corner centuries ago on the issue when neither eastern ecclesiastical divorces or western annulments were the norm, changing life-styles in the modern world required a 'reboot' so to speak.

As to the proof required by a marriage tribunal, does anyone have a Roman Canon Law understanding of the annulment process and the specific justifications used to determine that a marriage was 'null and void' ab initio? The adbridged version would suffice.

The bolded section cited by Wyatt, to say the least, strikes me as a perversion of the legal maxim  'res ipsa loquitur'. It is about as bold a statement as 'I know you are dead because you are dead.' Yes, that is a truth but...so what? There has to be more, I would think.

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question? I make that assumption because that is the civil law result when a court of law annuls a marriage in most states. Of course the statutory grounds for a civil annulment are very narrow and would not likely be applicable in Canon Law proceedings or else the numbers of such Canon Law annulments would be much smaller than is reported in the US.  Thank you!
Btw, there is an interesting precedent in IL where a man was given an civil annulment, because he was a communicant of the Vatican, and the woman he married had been married before and divorced, and she had hid that fact.  The basis of the annulment was fraud, given his church's requirements.  I'm curious  if his church required him to get an annulment from them afterwards.

Under IL, the children have standing to challenge or defend the validity of their parents marriage, given their legitimacy is at stake I suppose (the statutes name them, but I don't recall if the case law explains why).
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place

This seems rather personal.   Many people are willing to admit that they were not committed in the first place.

Or they tell themselves that in self-absolution from their present infidelity.
I have no idea what your circumstances were but you can't judge the entire process as wanting.
Oh, yes he can.  Btw, why did you assUme that he had "circumstances"?
I am always amused that time and money are often cited as the "glue" of marriage.  I don't think I would ever be able to marry time or money.
How about spending time and money on a wedding, which is what Stanley was talking about, or investing time and money (in addition to blood, sweat and tears) in a marriage, which I think he was implying (do correct me Stanley if I assUme too much).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:59:15 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,319
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew

Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is `ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

In USA Today there was an article last week that showed the map of the census, that 95% of the census tract areas in the country have lost percentage of household with children. Oddly enough, retirement paradises, Florida, Arizona and California, are ones that show growth (in CA, its in the desert areas, not the coast). Aready, a couple years ago, the non-married passed into the majority in the US.

A good start would be longer waiting periods for marriage, and the abolition of no fault divorce.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Christ is ascended!
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew

Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.
What purpose does an annullment, as opposed to a divorce (which you have to get in the US before you can start the annullment process, as I assUme you know), serve?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,615
Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 11:50:55 PM by bogdan »

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,436
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
Right. I guess I should have been more clear and said that "the sad reality is that civil divorces are not going to go away." The Catholic Church could be really extreme and not declare that the marriages of most of those couples who received civil divorces were null and void from the beginning and then, as a result, countless people would not be able to participate in the Holy Eucharist which our catechism says is the "source and summit of Christian life," or it could do the compassionate thing and be less strict and thus allow more people to continue to participate in the Sacraments of the Church.