Reading through headlines constantly and seeing numerous stories on Episcopalians upset with the appointment of the openly gay Bishop Robinson and of the various reactions to this including starting up new churches, I wondered about this reaction.
As marriage laws became more and more liberal and various churches accepted divorce and remarriage as a norm, why was there not the same type of pubic outcry? How many churches split over the issue of divorce and remarriage for basically any reason. How many resigned or left their denominations when their minister was divorced and remarried. How many were scandalized when remarriages were openly conducted in their churches? While active homosexual acts are always gravely disordered, so is adultery which in addition violates the precepts of justice.
It is only in more recent history that the no-fault divorce has become common. People complained about the disintegration of marriage, but where was the outcry at this. If a state attempts to legalize same sex marriage, the public mobilizes and attempts to keep this from happening. But no-fault divorce has not elicited this type of response even though this will directly affect the lives of millions of more people and their families. The damage done by these laws are much more grave.
The roots of this were in the Protestant reformation where marriage became not a indissolubility sacrament, but instead just as something holy. When speaking of Protestantism you can never speak of any topic as if it was one voice alone – but the so-called reformers accepted the possibility of divorce and remarriage. Even Eastern Orthodoxy allows for divorce and remarriage and over time has become more liberal in when this is permissible. Following the Reformation divorce was still seen as an evil and to be prevented as far as possible.
I see parallels between the acceptance of homosexuality and the acceptance of divorce and remarriage. Both at one time were condemned, but society as a whole came to more and more accept them then various churches adapted and accepted this. Both have appealed to an argument of it being difficult to live out the teaching. For those who suffer from same sex attraction the argument was made that it is too hard for them to remain chaste and so it would be better for them to live out their sexuality in the confines of a loving relationship. Those who have been separated or divorced appeal to the same thought, that they can’t remain chaste and it would be better to live their sexuality in the confines of a loving relationship. Society has also adopted the idea of it being unfair in both cases for people not to have some kind of union/marriage. In both cases Christian tradition has either been ignored or presented falsely. Also in both cases the Bible has been interpreted as to prove their positions. Protestantism by first accepting contraception in marriage can not at the same time complain about the always contraceptive homosexual sex. Once procreation is converted to only recreation how can you then complain about the results?
All of this was inevitable as people cut themselves off from the anchor of the rock of Peter. They could hold the line on scripture and tradition for only so long, but they can not prevent the drifting away. Cutting yourself off from the authoritative teaching authority of the Church will always lead to problems in correctly interpreting Apostolic Tradition and Scripture, you eventually will crash into the iceberg of an increasingly secular society. To wait until the mast is almost below the water line to make a distress call is just a little late. As a society we wanted to have both a form a Christianity and divorce for any reason.
As Catholic’s though we really can’t gloat. The Church will always teach the truth about the indissolubility of marriage no matter what we personally believe or do. But as a group Catholics are just as likely to divorce as anybody else. We might have the teaching authority of the Church to present us with the truth, but we have largely ignored it. We are upset when a priest breaks their vow of chastity, but have no problem breaking our own wedding vows. The Church is becoming like Cassandra; the truth is shouted but nobody follows it.
8 comments
In my Anglican parish, in 1963 or 64, there was a bit of a ruckus when the pastor married a divorcee with two children. The bishop sent a letter stating that it was acceptable because the marriage had been ‘annulled’ (by whom I do not know) on grounds of desertion. Of course, I was 8 or 9 at the time and didn’t remember all the details that the adults tried to keep quiet. What I do recall was that the woman in question was soon obviously pregnant and that her first trimester was in the heights of the 1964 rubella epidemic and there was concern that the baby might be damaged – I even recall hushed conversations in which the word ‘abortion’ was mentioned. The baby was born 7 months after the wedding – her ‘prematurity’ attributed to the stress of the rubella epidemic. (The baby was just under 6 lbs).
Great post, Jeff.
You’re right, Jeff. The Catholic church has no reason to gloat — especially since many “orthodox” Catholics believe that homosexuals can be ordained as long as they’re chaste.
For all we know, this Pope might be a homosexual — a chaste one, certainly, if so.
We Catholics should concentrate on our own problems with homosexual bishops before we start chortling over the Episcopalians’ problems.
I like your “posts from the heart”, Jeff.
You are right Jeff, there should be an outcry. Some protestant churches in my country, actively taught against divorce in the past, but if it became inevitable (and sadly, it sometimes is, particularly if one of the couple is not a believer or apostasizes) then remarriage was NOT and option. I know of protestant ministers here who have never remarried couples in 20, 30, 40 years of ministry, and have counselled and supported divorcees to rest in the grace of God as once-again singles…for life. One Anglican resigned after pressure from his bishop to conform with current Anglican practice to allow divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery or abandonment. True, not everyone heeds these minster’s pastoral advice and runs off and does their own thing, but there are ministers who still uphold truth and have pastored their flock responsibly.
Moreover, while I don’t agree with some Catholic theology and while I nevertheless admire the Catholic stance on issues which protestants seem to have neglected, I do however find it ironic that the Catholic church, here at least, seems to circumvent it’s own teaching on the indissolubility of marriage under the pathetic guise of ‘annulment’. An Anglican friend for example, whose Catholic husband cheated on her, found herself two years later with a letter from the Catholic church, requesting an annulment, so that her ex could remarry. Needless to say, whatever tenuous link she had with the church at the time, went out of the window with that hypocritical stunt. Sadly she is one of far too many who either seek or are served annulments from the Catholic church in the name of upholding the ‘truth’ about marriage.
Fortunately, God’s grace is able to circumvent the traditions and hard-heartedness of man – be they protestant or catholic.
I think it was in Dave Currie’s “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic” that I read an account of prominent Protestant ministers and evangelists in the USA who used to rail against divorce. Until their own children started to have “problems” in their marriages…….
Thanks, Joe, for more calumnies against JPII. For all we know, you could be (fill in the blank).
Norm, why would you consider it a calumny to question the possibility that JPII might be gay? After all, there isn’t a taint of sexual scandal surrounding him, and many “orthodox” Catholics believe that homosexuals can serve in the priesthood as long as they’re chaste.
Or, perhaps it’s much easier to dump on “those awful Protestants” than to look at our own possible problems with homosexual bishops? Perhaps my “calumny” is nothing but a Rohrschach test that many Catholics (perhaps like you) simply don’t want to take because it would reveal something unpleasant….
Comments are closed.