AXIOS!

A statement from the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America.

New York mass wedding organized in secret

A Hasidic synagogue in Brooklyn planned the wedding of a chief rabbi’s grandson with such secrecy it was able to host thousands of maskless celebrants without the city catching on.

Despite a surge in COVID-19 cases, guests crammed shoulder-to-shoulder inside the Yetev Lev temple in Williamsburg for the Nov. 8 nuptials — stomping, dancing and singing at the top of their lungs without a mask in sight, videos obtained by The Post show.

Organizers schemed to hide the wedding of Yoel Teitelbaum, grandson of Satmar Grand Rabbi Aaron Teitelman, from “the ravenous press and government officials,” says a detailed account in the Yiddish newspaper Der Blatt, the publication of the Satmar sect.

Read the rest here.

The arrogant and callous disregard for the public safety on display here is simply breathtaking. It is clear that these people believe they are somehow special and above the law, and free to endanger their neighbors and fellow citizens at will. If I were a New Yorker I would be furious. This is not a minor infraction of indoor accommodation limits or failure to space adequately between tables in a restaurant. Criminal charges should be filed. And if somebody dies as a result of being infected via this event, those charges should include negligent manslaughter.

A Review: “For the Life of the World” (Ecumenical Patriarchate Social Document)

The verdict: It's not irredeemable rubbish. But there is quite a bit that is problematic.

Read it here.

A sobering reflection on the GOA's step towards open communion

Marriage and the Cup of Salvation

HT: Dr. Tighe via email

Russian Church Supports Move to Define Marriage as Between One Man and One Woman

His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, supports the recent statements from President Vladimir Putin in favor of the traditional understanding of the family as the union of a man and a woman. 

“As for ‘parent # 1’ and ‘parent # 2, I have already said publicly once before, and I will repeat again: as long as I am President, we will not have parents one and two—we will have a father and mother,” the President said on February 13 at a meeting with the working group on preparing amendments to the Constitution. 

He also supported the initiative that “the concept of marriage as a union of a man and a woman should be enshrined in the basic law.” 

“I am glad that the President openly stated this, because, unfortunately, I see what is happening in some Western countries with the absolutely unabashed, shameless, intrusive and aggressive propaganda of so-called alternative family lifestyles, when, for example, two men or two women can create a family and adopt a child. Then it will not be mom and dad, but, indeed, ‘parent #1’ and ‘parent #2,’” Met. Hilarion commented, as reports Foma. 

Referring to the fact that Western society is now being insistently taught that marriage can take multiple forms, the Metropolitan stressed: “But I think that in our country, where the absolute majority of people adhere to traditional values, even regardless of their religious affiliation, it is very important that the Constitution enshrines this concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.” 

Vladimir Legoida, head of the Synodal Department for Relations Between the Church and Society and the Media, also commented on the President’s statement, saying, “The Church certainly welcomes this statement of the President. It is a designation of the most important position for all traditional religions: that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Unfortunately, legislation in a number of countries, and countries with a Christian tradition, already contains different formulations. In accordance with these formulations, new life realities that destroy the very foundations of society and family relations are legalized.” 

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill also earlier proposed adding a reference to God to the Russian constitution.

Source.

Church of England: Sex is for married heterosexual couples only

The Church of England has stated that sex belongs only within heterosexual marriage, and that Christians in gay or straight civil partnerships should be sexually abstinent.

Bishops have issued pastoral guidance in response to the recent introduction to mixed-sex civil partnerships, which says: “For Christians, marriage – that is, the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.”

The church “seeks to uphold that standard” in its approach to civil partnerships, and “to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships” within such partnerships.

It adds: “Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purpose for human beings.”

Read the rest here.

Given the recent trajectory of the CofE, I find this more than a bit surprising.

Greek Archdiocese requesting Constantinople to consider second marriages for several priests

The Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America met in New York on October 15-16 under the presidency of Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, dealing with a number of issues, including the organization of Synodal Committees, clerical discipline, the possibility of electing a new vicar bishop, the ongoing construction of the St. Nicholas shrine at Ground Zero, and much more. 

In particular, according to the official communiqué published by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, the Synod “Examined the petitions of three clergymen who have requested to enter into holy matrimony in the second instance and decided to formally extend a request to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” 

The Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which the Greek Archdiocese belongs, made serious waves last year when it decided to allow second marriages for priests in the event they are widowed or abandoned by their wives, given that the decision contradicts the long-standing canonical tradition of the Church. 

The decision even contradicts the resolution on marriage approved by the Council of Crete in 2016 that was presided over by Patriarch Bartholomew himself. 

Each case is to be judged individually by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the service of the second marriage is to be a low-key event for a close family circle. 

There are several ecumenically-received canons of the holy Orthodox Church deal with clerical marriage: 

Read the rest here.

Some things are not covered by oikonomia.

Dr. A.B. Mohler: Can Christians Use Birth Control?

The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age–and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.

Most evangelical Protestants greeted the advent of modern birth control technologies with applause and relief. Lacking any substantial theology of marriage, sex, or the family, evangelicals welcomed the development of “The Pill” much as the world celebrated the discovery of penicillin — as one more milestone in the inevitable march of human progress, and the conquest of nature.

At the same time, evangelicals overcame their traditional reticence in matters of sexuality, and produced a growth industry in books, seminars, and even sermon series celebrating sexual ecstasy as one of God’s blessings to married Christians. Once reluctant to admit the very existence of sexuality, evangelicals emerged from the 1960s ready to dish out the latest sexual advice without blushing. As one of the best-selling evangelical sex manuals proclaims, marital sex is Intended for Pleasure. Many evangelicals seem to have forgotten that it was intended for something else as well.

For many evangelical Christians, birth control has been an issue of concern only for Catholics. When Pope Paul VI released his famous encyclical outlawing artificial birth control, Humanae Vitae, most evangelicals responded with disregard — perhaps thankful that evangelicals had no pope who could hand down a similar edict. Evangelical couples became devoted users of birth control technologies ranging from the Pill to barrier methods and Intrauterine Devices [IUDs]. That is all changing, and a new generation of evangelical couples is asking new questions.

A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control–and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies. Several developments contributed to this reconsideration, but the most important of these is the abortion revolution. The early evangelical response to legalized abortion was woefully inadequate. Some of the largest evangelical denominations at first accepted at least some version of abortion on demand.

Read the rest here.

[Dr. Mohler is an ordained minister and President of the Southern Baptist Convention.]

The traditional teaching of the Orthodox  Church on ABC is... no. In fact the Church generally will not marry those who do not want, or who are not ready for a family. In recent years there has been some movement towards a very limited tolerance based on economy (oikonomia) for specific situations such as when a family already has as many children as they can support and/or take care of or where serious health risks may attend pregnancy. Though even then the Church teaches that the ideal response is sexual abstinence. But acknowledging the reality that not all couples can live a life of complete continence this concession is sometimes made. Usually it must be discussed with your spiritual father in confession. When ABC is used it must never be abortificiant or involve self mutilation. This generally places the burden on the husband.

Unfortunately, and especially in the West, some of the Orthodox jurisdictions have in practice become quite lax on this point. And it must be admitted that among the laity, respect for the traditional moral teaching of the Church is generally no better than among other Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism which is even stricter and admits no exception at all. Which is to say that it is widely ignored.

Marriage as a Lifetime of Suffering

I would like to commend Fr. Stephen Freeman's latest reflection to readers of this blog. I am not going to excerpt it. Just go here and read it all.

Forbidden To Call It Divorce. But It Sure Looks Like It

ROME, September 15, 2015 - As the days go by it becomes ever clearer how revolutionary is the scope of the two motu prorio published by Pope Francis on September 8 - the second for the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches - on the reform of procedures for marital nullity cases:

> Lettera apostolica "Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus"

> Lettera apostolica "Mitis et Misericors Iesus"

It is the pope himself, in the opening of the document, who presents the reason for the reform:

“The enormous number of faithful who, despite wanting to look after their conscience, too often are turned aside by the juridical structures of the Church.”

In the official presentation of the motu proprio the president of the commission that elaborated the reform, Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, turned the reason into an objective:

“To move from the restricted number of a few thousand findings of nullity to the enormous number of unfortunates who could have a declaration of nullity but are left out by the existing system.”

Francis has been absolutely convinced for some time that at least half of the marriages celebrated in church all over the world are invalid. He said so in the press conference on July 28, 2013 on the return flight from Rio de Janeiro. He said it again to Cardinal Walter Kasper, as Kasper in turn said in an interview with “Commonweal” of May 7, 2014.

Read the rest here.

On the Sacramental Nature of Marriage

One of the obvious differences between the Orthodox and Western understanding of marriage is that in the West, marriage is what two people do, while in the East, it is something that is done to them. This difference is expressed in the wedding service. In the West, the two people give a set of vows, thus entering into a contract with each other. In the Orthodox service, no vows are exchanged; after the initial inquiry as to whether they want to be married to each other (more on that later), they say absolutely nothing. They also do nothing: something is done to them—crowns are placed on their heads, they are led by the priest around the gospel stand, the common cup is given to them, even their wedding rings are placed on their fingers by other people. Whatever the historical development of the Orthodox rite may have been, its form points to the belief in the sacramental nature of marriage. In this way, the rite of marriage similar to the Eucharist. One does not produce the Body and Blood of Christ the way that one would negotiate and produce a contract. All of the actions of the priest and the congregation are not aimed at the production of the Gifts, but at preparing their own hearts and souls for receiving the sacrament.

But when we speak of the sacramental nature of marriage, I think that we have mean some specific thing. Marriage is not a sacrament because it is listed as such in the catechism; and it is not a sacrament because God blesses the couple in some general way. One of the ways we can define a sacrament to be more precise for the purposes of this study is to look at it as transformation: it is not quantitative (whereby vows, blessings, certificates, etc. are added to the couple) but qualitative—the couple does not remain the same two people they were before the weddings but is transformed (“changing them by Your Holy Spirit” in the Eucharistic sense) into something they were not–a specific icon of Christ and His Church.

Just saying this, however, does not make it so. Many—if not most!—of our Orthodox marriages do not resemble the icon of Christ and look very similar to whatever model of marriage that our current society presents. If our theology is not having any practical effect in the actual marriages, then we must strive harder to make theology relevant to the lives of Orthodox spouses. The sacramental nature of an Orthodox marriage and the real presence of God as the third Person in the “trinity” of God, man and woman, needs to be made real in order to help move toward the sacramental transformation of the spouses. 

Read the rest here.

Cardinal Marx on Francis, the Synod, Women in the Church and Gay Relationships

Two issues at the present synod are divorced and remarried Catholics and gay Catholics, especially those in relationships. Do you have opportunities to listen directly to these Catholics in your present ministry?

I have been a priest for 35 years. This problem is not new. I have the impression that we have a lot of work to do in the theological field, not only related to the question of divorce, but also the theology of marriage. I am astonished that some can say, “Everything is clear” on this topic. Things are not clear. It is not about church doctrine being determined by modern times. It is a question of aggiornamento, to say it in a way that the people can understand, and to always adapt our doctrine to the Gospel, to theology, in order to find in a new way the sense of what Jesus said, the meaning of the tradition of the church and of theology and so on. There is a lot to do.

I speak with many experts—canon lawyers and theologians—who recognize many questions related to the sacramentality and validity of marriages. One question is: What can we do when a person marries, divorces and later finds a new partner? There are different positions. Some bishops at the synod said, “They are living in sin.” But others said, “You cannot say that somebody is in sin every day. That is not possible.” You see, there are questions we must speak about. We opened a discussion on this topic in the German bishops’ conference. Now the text is published. I think it is a very good text and a good contribution for the discussion of the synod.

It is very important that the synod does not have the spirit of “all or nothing.” It is not a good way. The synod cannot have winners and losers. That is not the spirit of the synod. The spirit of the synod is to find a way together, not to say, “How can I find a way to bring my position through?” Rather: “How can I understand the other position, and how can we together find a new position?” That is the spirit of the synod.

Therefore it is very important that we are working on these questions. I hope that the pope will inspire this synod. The synod cannot decide; only a council or pope can decide. These questions must also be understood in a broader context. The task is to help the people to live. It is not, according to “Evangelii Gaudium,” about how we can defend the truth. It is about helping people to find the truth. That is important.

The Eucharist and reconciliation are necessary for people. We say to some people, “You will never be reconciled until your death.” That is impossible to believe when you see the situations. I could give examples. In the spirit of “Evangelii Gaudium,” we have to see how the Eucharist is medicine for the people, to help the people. We must look for ways for people to receive the Eucharist. It is not about finding ways to keep them out! We must find ways to welcome them. We have to use our imagination in asking, “Can we do something?” Perhaps it is not possible in some situations. That is not the question. The focus must be on how to welcome people.

Read the rest here.

There is a crisis building in the Catholic Church and I suspect that after decades of building pressure things may be approaching the boiling point.

A Must Read....

Fr. Stephen Freeman's excellent blog post on the theology of Orthodox Marriage. Among the many excellent points made is that marriage is NOT a contract and therefor claims by certain groups to equal rights under contract law do not apply.

Many Years

To John and Ann Betar on their 80th(!) wedding anniversary.

Read their story here.
HT: Fr. Z

Many Years

To H.M. The Queen and H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh on their 65th wedding anniversary.

George Weigel: The Church should get out of the civil marriage business

A further threat comes from the gay insurgency, which will press the administration to find some way to federalize the marriage issue and to compel acceptance of the chimera of “gay marriage.” Thus it seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law.

Read the rest here.

He is partly right though for the wrong reasons. It is the state that should get out of the "marriage" business and instead adopt a uniform code regulating civil unions. Marriage would then be a purely religious institution. This would effectively pull the "fairness" rug out from under the gay mafia and ensure that the state could not meddle in church doctrine.

Indian Court Nullifies Some Arranged Marriage Contracts

Arranged marriages remain fairly common in various parts of the world including India. The Delhi High Court has now said that such contracts made on behalf of minors are voidable by the bride or groom under certain circumstances.

They really don't like people saying this...

But it's true. Annulment is just the Catholic word for divorce.

Marriage and Divorce Law; Time for a change

OK. Anyone who has not been living on another planet has probably heard that Kim Kardashian has filed for divorce just 72 days into her marriage with sports star Kris Humphries. On a certain level my attitude is, if you find out you made a colossal mistake, better to admit it upfront and cut your losses. Certainly better to deal with it before there are children involved.

On the other hand this only adds to a culture that is fast reducing marriage to something of a joke. There was a time when once you said "I do" that was it. There was no waking up one morning and seeing your honey in curlers and face cream for the first time and asking if maybe you need to go see a lawyer. For better or worse meant just that. And divorce, quite properly IMHO, carried a social stigma.

No, I don't want to go back to the days when it was all but impossible to get a divorce. There are legitimate reasons for it. Even Roman Catholics, while maintaining the indissoluble nature of marriage as a sacrament, have in recent years accepted that there are some grounds where a civil divorce may be justified. But we need to find some sort of middle ground between forcing people to remain in a poisonous or abusive marriage and those for whom you need a stop watch to keep up with their marriages.

To whit I have a few modest proposals.

First, limit "no-fault divorce."  That should be a one time deal only.  If I were czar I would do away with it entirely, but I am trying to keep my proposals within the realm of the realistic given our polity and culture today.  Secondly require anyone under the age of 21 to undergo some form of marriage counseling BEFORE they marry.  Third, impose a 90 day cooling off period from the time a couple applies for a marriage license until it is granted.  Exceptions can be made for unusual circumstances.  But no more drive-thru weddings.  And finally, no more serial wedding and divorces.  There should be a firm number of times you can divorce and remarry.  In the Orthodox Church that number is three, though we apply that also to cases where the spouse died which I don't support extending into civil law.  Still I think three is a reasonable number.  It should sober someone up if they have been twice married and divorced knowing that there will be no hubby number four. Let's call this the Eddie Fisher rule (after Liz Taylor's fourth husband).

Will this put the breaks on our divorce happy culture?  Probably not.  But it might act as a speed bump.  I would settle for that at the moment.

Mexico City considers 2-year marriage licence

Lawmakers in Mexico City are proposing a new marriage licence that would allow couples to split after a two-year trial rather than go through the lengthier divorce process.

Instead of the traditional 'till death to us part,' couples would be able to opt for temporary commitments, test out married life, and then renew their licenses indefinitely if they are still devoted to their chosen spouse.

The proposed law would not help those with morning-after regrets. Couples who want to dissolve the marriage before two years would have to go through regular divorce proceedings.

"Two years is the minimum amount of time it takes to know and appreciate what life is like as a couple," Lizbeth Rosas, who is spearheading the proposed legislation on behalf of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, said to BBC Mundo in Spanish.

"If you renew, that means you have an understanding with your partner, and that you are clear on the rules of the relationship."

If the marriage is unhappy or unstable, the contract — which would include clauses on custody rights and the division of property — could be dissolved without what proponents refer to as cumbersome paperwork that hurts families.

Read the rest here.