So there you have it. In 1981 the Anglicans opened the door and by 2010 the slope has become so slippery that now Bishops are sliding.
So I ask my Anglican friends to do us all a favor and to cut to the chase and approve divorced and re-married lesbian Bishops. C’mon, you know you want to. Just do it now so all the so called traditionalists in the Anglican Church can either swim the Tiber or admit that they aren’t really ”˜traditionalists’ after all.
[blockquote]the slope has become so slippery that now Bishops are sliding.[/blockquote]
Methinks the bishops are mostly the ones who tilted the slope down in the first place!
Does it need to be pointed out that the [url=http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm]Eastern Orthodox[/url] have always recognized that there are times when divorce may be a tragic necessity, and, that, in some cases, remarriage is possible for the innocent victim of a failed marriage? The NT itself allows an exception clause in cases of porneia. The Reformers allowed for limited exception to an absolute prohibition against divorce based on the plain reading of the NT. It would seem that the door was opened not by the Anglicans in 1981, but by people like Basil the Great, Martin Luther and John Calvin, or, to put blame where it is really due, Jesus and St. Paul.
I also should not need to add that “annulment” in the Roman Church is all too often divorce by another name. And neither Basil nor Jesus nor St. Paul say anything about annulment.
For all the mess and the radical disagreement that is the current Anglican Communion, articles like this are simply silly, and add nothing to the discussion.
The historic Anglican position on “divorce and remarriage” (DaR) is clear enough — no.
Henry VIII was against it; he never had a “divorce” (the dissolution of a valid marriage, with the permission of subsequent remarriage) as all of his “divorces” were “annulments” (granted by Cranmer). Cranmer himself favored DaR in a wide variety of circumstances, and shortly after Henry VIII’s death in 1547 he granted a divorce (in the modern sense) to William Parr, then Earl of Essex, later Marquess of Northampton, who subsequently “remarried.” (He also granted Sir Ralph Sadler permission to remain married to a woman whom he had married over a decade previously, some years after her husband had disappeared, when that first husband reappeared and tried to extort money from Sadler.) Provision for DaR was embodied in Cranmer’s proposed reformed Code of Canon Law, but that proposal was rejected by the House of Commons in 1553 (as it was again in 1571 when reform-minded MPs tried to introduce it despite Elizabeth I’s objections). Under Mary, Parr was forced to separate from his wife under threat of excommunication and prosecution for bigamy — and while he resumed living with his second wife, one of Elizabeth I’s “Ladies in Waiting,” the Queen more than once publicly reproached him for “bigamy” — and when he wished to marry again after his second wife died in 1565, she forbade the marriage and refused to permit it until after Parr’s original wife died in 1571 (Parr survived his third marriage by only a couple of months).
Under Elizabeth DaR was non-existent and illegal in England under both Common and Canon Law. Church courts continued to grant “separations from bed and board” to incompatible couples, but these did not allow, and specifically forbade, remarriage of either party during the life of the other. Sometimes it happened regardless: John Thornburgh, a clergyman, was granted such a separation from his wife in the early 1580s, but went on to contract a remarriage shortly thereafter. In 1591, when he was appointed Bishop of Limerick (in Ireland), seemingly as a reward for his Catholic-hunting activities, the (Calvinist) Archbishop of York objected violently to Thornborough’s appointment, on the grounds that he was an admitted bigamist, but his letters of protest to the Queen seemingly did not reach her, and the consecration went forward (Thornborough died as Bishop of Worcester in 1641).
In 1604 new canons promulgated in the Church of England ruled out DaR in all circumstances whatsoever, making provision for “separation” and (in very restricted circumstances) “annulments.” This remained the formal position of the CofE down to (I think) the 1980s — although in Scotland, by contrast, DaR was available in a wide variety of circumstances from 1560 onwards. From 1670 onwards there was in England there was the phenomenon of “Parliamentary divorce:” an Act of Parliament would grant a couple a divorce, give one (or sometimes both) of them legal permission to remarry, and exempt any clergyman performing the remarriage full exemption fro the penalties of the law, both Common and Canon/Civil: about 150 such divorces were granted between 1670 (Lord Roos’s case) and 1821 (when the farcical public fiasco of George IV’s attempt to get such a divorce from his estranged wife ended in failure). Modern-style divorce became available in England only in 1857, and although after that date no legal penalties could be levied upon clergymen who performed such “remarriages,” right down to the 1960s clergymen who did so were effectively “blacklisted” by just about every diocesan bishop, and denied all further preferment within the CofE.
Generally, “low church” or “evangelical” clergy tended to favor DaR in this period (in some circumstances), not least because all foreign Protestant churches, both Lutheran and Reformed, allowed it, and “high-church” (later “Anglo-Catholic”) clergy to oppose it in almost all circumstances — but in 1670 it was the strenuous support of “Lord Roos’s Bill” by the “Laudian” Bishop of Durham, John Cosin, in the face of the opposition of most of the other bishops, that persuaded the House of Lords to pass it.
I am, however, totally ignorant of the practice of PECUSA from 1785 onwards on this matter.
Dr. Witt (#2),
Granting your points, would it not still be better for the present ACNA position on new episcopal consecrations to be the norm across the Communion?
Even if an episcopal nominee were the innocent party, is it not better that the presenting behavior modeled by those set in authority be unexceptionable? Equally, where an existing bishop is unable to avoid divorce, I would have thought it better that he (or she) withdraw from active ministry.
Re #2
William Witt
A couple of quick points. While it is true that the Orthodox Church does tolerate in certain circumstances remarriage in keeping with the Canons there are some important distinctions from modern Protestant practice.
First remarriage is not a right. When permitted, it is a concession to human weakness, and it is strongly discouraged. Secondly the Orthodox Church has nothing equivalent to the Roman concept of annulment. That said most Orthodox acknowledge that some “marriages” were fatally flawed from the start. DaR is often tolerated as an acknowledgment of that fact. In this sense DaR can be seen at least on some level as the Orthodox acknowledgment of the Western concept concept defective and invalid marriages. Finally the ancient canons of the Church apply what we might call the baseball rule… three strikes and you are out. There are no fourth marriages, period.
All of the above being said and true, it must also be acknowledged that there is a growing sense among many Orthodox, that we have become too lax in permitting second marriages, often to the point where many Orthodox mistakenly view DaR as a “right” instead of more correctly an act of oikonomia.
As always, I’m delighted when Dr. Witt chimes in (#2) and I appreciate his sensible response to this sarcastic and rather over-the-top jibe at Anglicanism.
And likewise, as always, I’m pleased when Dr. Tighe deigns to weigh in, as he did with his typically learned #3. As usual, I find his control of vast amounts of historical trivia about the CoE a bit overwhelming. I’m envious of such massive erudition.
And finally, I’m glad that Dr. Bonner also entered the fray with his balanced #4. Any thread that attracts three such historical heavy hitters is blessed.
I’ll just add that I think that one of the more promising things about the ACNA is that we are seriously trying to repent of the extreme and scandalous laxity and leniency of TEC with regard to “DaR.” I’ve heard ++Duncan say that he will never, under any circumstances, grant permission for a third marriage. Period. In that case, I think even Ad Orientem would admit that he’s even stricter than our brothers in the Eastern Church that operates by that [i]”three strikes and you’re out”[/i] rule.
FWIW, this new strictness has already had some practical consequences within the ACNA. When the new diocese that covers northern FL and southern GA was formed, one of the leading priests that might otherwise have been elected its first bishop, Fr. Jim McCaslin of Jacksonville (a friend of mine from his days at Truro), who had been the Dean of the ACN Convocation for that area before the ACNA was formed, was (properly) disqualified since he had been divorced and remarried many years ago. Neil Lebhar (an equally fine priest) was eventually elected.
David Handy+
[blockquote]Granting your points, would it not still be better for the present ACNA position on new episcopal consecrations to be the norm across the Communion? [/blockquote]
Agreed. The current liberal Protestant tendency (among Anglicans and others) simply to follow the culture on this is irresponsible. I have known many more people who have been hurt by divorce (especially children of divorce) than I have by same-sex sexuality (including my own wife). I have recently provided some small input myself to a document produced by AMIA on this question of DaR.
The question of whether the divorced and remarried should ever be allowed to be ordained is certainly a delicate one. One is tempted to advocate an absolute prohibition, but my own acquaintance with seminarians and clergy who have been innocent victims (inasmuch as anyone can be) in cases of adultery or physical or emotional abuse, or have repented and have made genuine attempts to make amends for previous failings, leads me to believe that such cases have to be considered case by case.
Obviously, it is not the case that any allowance for divorce and remarriage whatsoever inevitably leads to embracing divorced and remarried lesbian bishops. But why only lesbians? Certainly a well known bishop in TEC should have been removed from orders on grounds of violating his marriage vows by divorcing his spouse before the question of his same-sex partnership was even an issue.
Re #6
Rev. Handy,
[blockquote] I’ve heard ++Duncan say that he will never, under any circumstances, grant permission for a third marriage. Period. In that case, I think even Ad Orientem would admit that he’s even stricter than our brothers in the Eastern Church that operates by that “three strikes and you’re out†rule.[/blockquote]
You are correct. Third marriages are in fact permitted by the ancient canons, although in theory they are supposed to be rare. It’s also worth noting that the Orthodox service for 2nd marriages is not the same as that for a first marriage. It is quite penitential. And the service for third marriages, when permitted, is positively funereal.
I am not certain I would concur with the prohibition under every circumstance of third marriages. However, I applaud the effort to restore a sense of the sacred to marriage and impose some discipline for the spiritual well being of the faithful.
[blockquote]It’s also worth noting that the Orthodox service for 2nd marriages is not the same as that for a first marriage. It is quite penitential. And the service for third marriages, when permitted, is positively funereal.[/blockquote]
I know it’s a serious topic, but this ripped a good loud chuckle out of me here at work. Thanks, John! (I shudder to think what a hypothetical FOURTH marriage service would look like.. perhaps having to go through with it serves to discourage anyone from asking!)
I agree with NRA (#6) that ACNA is seeking to review practice in the light of Scripture, as AMiA did with women’s ordination. Some years ago I attempted a brief review for the faculty of Trinity School for Ministry. It’s called [url=http://www.stephenswitness.org/1999/05/marriage-and-divorce-comments-on.html] Marriage and Divorce: Comments on the Biblical Texts[/url].
[blockquote]Conclusions
The following are narrowly drawn conclusions based on the exegesis of the texts above. It may be appropriate for moral theology to extend or shape these principles in the light of pastoral circumstances and particular historical settings (e.g., some suggestions given in parentheses).
1) Marriage of one man and one woman is God’s general and perfect will for His creatures. Marriage is a spiritual covenant, a psycho-physical union that normally leads to offspring and the family unit of society.
2) Marriage is God’s primary will, divorce a secondary provision for human sin. Thus divorce can never be justified by the mere initiative of the husband (or in our society, of the wife).
3) Jesus calls His disciples to a higher righteousness in which they live out the purposes of the creation covenant. Thus it seems inconceivable that two believers, seeking to follow Jesus, can divorce in the will of God. If a Christian couple claims that they are incompatible or that their marriage is dead, one or both of them is sinning.
4) If one Christian partner willfully separates from or divorces his spouse, the partners are not free to remarry but should seek reconciliation. During this period, it is wrong for anyone else to seek to marry one of the separated partners. (I wonder if Paul would put a time limit as to how long he would expect them to remain single in this situation?)
5) Marriage may be ended justifiably on grounds of sexual sin or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. (If abuse or abandonment of the “body” of one’s partner is the common sin linking these two biblical cases, physical abuse of spouse or children might be included as a legitimate ground for divorce.) If divorce is justifiable in this case, it follows that remarriage is also justifiable.
6) Remarriage by one partner ends any possibility of reconciliation of the original marriage. The innocent party to divorce may remarry with a clear conscience. The guilty party might remarry after repentance.
7) Remarriages are not the same as first marriages. Individual relationships may be better the second time around, but God’s perfect will in monogamous marriage is defectively imaged in a second marriage. [/blockquote]
Note: I did not attempt in this article to assess the question of annulment or of the possibly higher requirements for the ordained.
Chris,
[blockquote] I shudder to think what a hypothetical FOURTH marriage service would look like.. [/blockquote]I am guessing the service be would be performed in a small building painted black, somewhere in equatorial Guinea under the noonday sun without air conditioning. And the incense would smell like sulfur.