Eastern Christian Book: Stupid Ideas about Married Clergy Part MMCCXVII

Eastern Christian Book: Stupid Ideas about Married Clergy Part MMCCXVII

It is the shortest essay in my new book, Married Priests in the Catholic Church, "Reflections on Two Vocations in Two Lungs of the One Church," but David Meinzen's essay is one of the most singular and important ever written on this topic, for he demolishes the idea that a married priest, to avoid being "divided," must always put the parish first. Meinzen shows--drawing on his long experience as son of a married Lutheran pastor (Missouri Synod), and then a married Orthodox, and finally and currently a married Eastern Catholic priest--that any man in holy orders who neglects his family to serve his parish is unworthy of both vocations, and does damage to the one he is serving precisely insofar as he is neglecting the other. Put differently, to neglect his family is to serve the broader church badly for there is no real division between the domestic and wider Church: they are all the one body of Christ, and following impeccable Pauline logic, when one part of the body suffers, every part and everybody suffers. The logic Meinzen uses is very similar to what I used more recently in talking about the Christian case for self-care. 

Meinzen goes beyond this to make a positive case: a strong clerical family by that very fact builds up the entire body of Christ, making it stronger as well. In other words, a man living up to his sacramental vocation to marriage, and working to strengthen and protect that marriage and family, is going to be in a stronger position to work to strengthen and protect his equally sacramental vocation to priesthood. Any idea of competition between the two is the grossest of theological mistakes which must be abandoned.

This is the order of charity; now some Latin apologists may still argue the duty to a parishioner who is not a family member is still greater than the duty to one's family. They may even used the flaw analogy of a priest being married to the Church (in a literal sense).

 

 

This is Gerondism

Simplistic solutions to pastoral problems that require more than quotations from monastics.

... If he doesn’t “love” her, the wife will not obey him. If the man does not heed this word, he is responsible for the woman’s obstinacy. Thus, he has to love her by all means.

+Elder Arsenie (Papacioc), Eternity in the Moment, p. 181 pic.twitter.com/g4Kpd7zfs5

— Orthodox Christianity (@Orthodoxy2019) February 2, 2021

More pastorally questionable pontificating:

1/2: The woman has to live in harmony with her husband. They have to work together for the supreme goal: salvation. The woman is the heart of the family, as the man is the head of the family. If there’s no heart, the head is empty...

+Elder Arsenie (Papacioc) pic.twitter.com/SGVzVnzXBC

— Orthodox Christianity (@Orthodoxy2019) February 1, 2021

As One Could Guess, This is a Roman Catholic Essay

One that ignores Eastern Catholic canons and theology regarding marriage and ecclesial divorce. Latins need to stop speaking of the Church when they are really referring just to the patriarchate of Rome.

To see what the Church understands marriage to be, we must look to divine revelation in Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition.https://t.co/3J4RDqAA5n

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) November 9, 2020

First Things

A Latin Archbishop Chats with an Eastern Catholic Presbyter and His Wife

Really great content from @archbsmith talking with an eastern catholic priest and his wife about “priesthood, marriage, and sacrificial worship.” https://t.co/xxKgNE3nrw

— Fr Alexander Laschuk (@byzkanonist) October 28, 2020

George and Anderson Respond to Pope Francis

What did Pope Francis say about "civil unions"? What did he mean? How does the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and sexual morality bear on questions of legally recognized partnerships of various kinds? Ryan Anderson and I examine the questions.https://t.co/Ur8xRi8Rju

— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) October 28, 2020

No public official or religious leader can change the nature of marriage or the moral status of non-marital sexual conduct. For a law to serve the common good, it must reflect the truth about marriage.https://t.co/Io1KthkVsZ via @PublicDiscourse @McCormickProf

— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanTAnd) October 28, 2020

A Response to Pope Francis

Priest Canonist: Permitting Same-Sex Civil Unions Is a 'Grave Error' https://t.co/0otRCbxZne

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 27, 2020

Selective Editing of the Interview of Pope Francis for the Francesco Documentary

"Joe" points out that a second clip, which was never aired as a part of the official interview done by by Valentina Alazraki or released subsequently, was added onto another clip, which made it seem like the other clip (that those with SSA should have be a part of a family [with their parents]) was being used as a justification or rationale for the claim concerning civil unions in the second clip. Even if that it is the case, Pope Francis nevertheless did make some statements concerning civil unions. Will the deleted portions of the interview be made available? Will the Vatican Press Office issue a clarification or denial on behalf of Pope Francis? I wouldn't be surprised if there is no clarification issued.

Wasn't Expecting the Next Problematic Statement So Soon

Will Latins reconsider their ecclesiology now? What will it take?

#PopeFrancis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance https://t.co/kTtlwYyENd via @cnalive

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

Where do the Pope’s comments leave Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco who in 2007 led a major campaign against Italian government proposals for civil unions for same-sex couples, leading to death threats against him? He again resisted similar proposals in 2016 https://t.co/eK5SxvRIjF

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

The Vatican’s 2003 document on “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” https://t.co/ZIi9hgjx0A pic.twitter.com/gbigAgR2rI

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

From @HuffPosthttps://t.co/qGpDOyae0m

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

From @NewWaysMinistry https://t.co/bhZtu6yBoW

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

From @TIME https://t.co/5C3XcqEtzt

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

Elder Sophrony on the Three Stages of the Spiritual Life

Patrick Viscuso Reviews Kevin Schembri's Oikonomia

Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies (temporary free access)

The reviewer is a priest and canonist for GOARCH:

The Reverend Dr. Patrick Viscuso is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and a canonist specializing in marriage and gender issues. His doctorate in historical theology from The Catholic University of American concentrated on Byzantine and Oriental canon law, patristic studies, and church history. He also holds a Master of Divinity from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Fr. Viscuso is the author of a large number of scholarly publications in the field of Late Byzantine Canon Law and is a specialist in marriage legislation and theology. His most recent writings focus on the relationship of marriage to ordination, purity issues, divorce, and women's superstitions in late Byzantium.

Perhaps he has written something on the Byzantine canons on marriage and divorce.

In his review of Oikonomia: Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, he notes

Another point repeatedly made is that the "Orthodox tradition" invests the indissolubility of marriage with an eternal character and consequently views remarriage as a concession or expression of ecclesial oikonomia. The absence of the Eucharist and crowning during late Byzantine celebration of second and third marriages is said to imply that Orthodoxy regarded or still regards these unions as less than sacramental in some way.

However, the author fails to show any articulation of marriage as an eternal bond in Orthodox canonical or theological literature prior to the twentieth century, when this theological opinion came to be expressed at the Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge. In fact, there are substantial Byzantine texts that articulate a contrary view affirming that marriage is ended by death, an example being the Scriptural commentaries of Theophylaktos, archbishop of Ohrid (b. ca. 1055-d. after 1126), specifically on Luke 20:34–36.

The assertions regarding the non-sacramental nature of second and third unions within Orthodoxy do not adequately address the facts. For instance, there was no uniform practice regarding crowning of a second or third marriage in Byzantium. Second unions were definitely crowned according to the usage of the Great Church; the presence or absence of crowning did not mean that a sacerdotal blessing of the marriage did not take place; and, since the Eucharist was not a constitutive element in the establishment of the marriage, the canonical restriction of the second and third married from the Eucharist during a period of penance did not mean that the union, as established by sacerdotal blessing, was not regarded as sacramental and incapable of sanctification.

Furthermore, in considering such questions, the absence of the Eucharist from the marriage service is completely irrelevant to its sacramental nature. As is obvious to those who have ever attended a contemporary ceremony, Orthodox marriages today are considered blessed and sacramental without the reception of the Eucharist during their celebration, even the so-called mixed marriages of Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Also, the author's emphasis on the penitential nature of second and third unions does not adequately address contemporary practice, where such penances are no longer imposed.

A dominant theologoumenon is not the same as dogma... and the opinion that marriage is eternal may not even be dominant in the various Byzantine ecclesial traditions.

So second and third "marriages" may be deemed "sacramental"? And yet a period of penance might be required. Is there a authoritative work discussing penances in the canons and their rationale?

I will have to eventually get a Byzantine textbook on marriage but probably at least one that covers a range of opinions among the various ecclesial traditions, or several textbooks. I don't think I would rely on a Greek one alone.

A Latin Group Issues a Latin Document with a Latin Conclusion Produced from Latin Premises

CNA/CWR: Theologians say there is ‘doubt’ of sacramentality in marriages between ‘baptized non-believers’

The New Roman Marriage Rite

1P5: The New Lectionary and the Catholic Wedding by Peter Kwasniewski

One of the topics most hotly disputed at the synods on marriage and the family, back in those halcyon years of 2014 and 2015, was the possibility of admitting to Holy Communion Catholics who are living in what are euphemistically …

Mixed Marriage

OCA: “Mixed Marriage: An Orthodox History” offers fascinating study of marriage and the Church
(via Byz, TX)

How Useful a Book?

Scott Hahn's latest is on marriage and family. Sounds rather blue-pilled, and he's unlikely to deal with feminism in any meaningful way.

Scott Hahn's Call to Save the Family By CASEY CHALK
Want to restore our culture? The Christian scholar says marriage the place to start.

Eastern Christian Books: Eastern Orthodox Divorce and Remarriage

Eastern Christian Books: Eastern Orthodox Divorce and Remarriage

But Byzantine Christianity is not the only tradition besides the Latin or Roman one.

Against Marriage by Clare Chambers

OUP

MoJ: "Against Marriage: An Egalitarian Defence of the Marriage-Free State" by Rick Garnett

Sanctification Through the Sacrament of Marriage?

How useful for a discussion with the Orthodox?

Psychological Impediments to Marriage

What would be considered as such in the Byzantine canons?

In the west there is a consideration of factors that would eliminate consent or voluntariness. But what of broader psychological impediments to contracting marriage, i.e. moral or spiritual impediments?

And deception is not the same as the lack of good judgment on the part of the person who doesn't really know the other person.

Is lack of moral maturity (which is different from emotional maturity but may include it?) sufficient to nullify the marriage? If one of the parties is selfish or narcissistic and cannot make a real commitment despite a verbal willingness to state that intent, can that party truly marry? Or can the law only limit itself to cases in which one deliberately lies about making a permanent and stable commitment to be with the other person?

What of other personality disorders?

How would one prove that a party never had the properly intentionality with respect to marriage? The mere fact that the party left the marriage? But someone could just change his mind and break his vow. It seems to me that it is psychologically possible for someone to merely mouth the vow without intending it; saying the words in order to attain some goal other than a true marriage. Would that be a conscious lie? Perhaps.

And what if the parties are psychologically or morally unable to fulfill the roles in marriage; i.e. the male is unable to lead and care for the other, or the female is unable to follow/obey and care for the other?

Exactly

Ed Peters on what seems to be the latest publicity stunt for the "populist, pastoral" pope: Thoughts on a Mid-Air Marriage (original)

In his update, Peters reports that this may have been a planned event. If that is the case, did the same person who got this to happen also have the conscience necessary to make sure the necessary vetting of the couple was done? Even if that were the case, the fact that this was publicized as a spontaneous event and to maintain a certain image of the pope speaks volumes about the papacy.