Unbreakable Vows: Catholic and Eastern Orthodox thought on Marriage

This is material from HBP shortly after reading it, that I had emailed to Pauli at one point and I figured would put it up here because it is good. First, I have to say that I was really blown away by this image because of its depth, and also because it clarified for me a matter much studied in Catholic and Orthodox Theology because the two differ on it. It really drove home how powerful the imagination is because here is a woman who is probably not extremely well versed in this particular debate because very few are who are not focused in the matter, such as Theology students or clergy from the respective branches of Christendom, least of all a lay-person from the Scottish Presbyterian Tradition. Yet her intuitive imagination on the matter of vows sheds, for me, a world of light on the matter. Vows The defining characteristic of a vow is that the context for a vow is an oath. In all ancient cultures an oath is distinct from a promise in that in a promise your name is your guarantee, in an oath, the name of the god is the guarantee ... "so help me God." "Professionals" and "Professors" used to be those who would PROFESS an oath (like we still see the president of the US do when inaugurated). They would do this because the nature and responsibilities of their office were seen as so heavy that they could only be fulfilled with the help of a god and for something this serious the help of a god was required for the safety of those the professionals would serve. Such are doctors (who still take the Hippocratic oath), teachers responsible for the education, and moreover the formation, of the young, and Lawyers (in an older sense of the word, those who crafted legislation which ensured justice in a society - the modern form in America would be congressmen). Note: I am here probably lifting heavily from Dr Scott Hahn's book Swear to God, even though I have not read it yet ... but I took 1 undergraduate class and 3 graduate classes from him and I know some of this by heart (write it on enough final exams and you will too haha). Note: Above I do mean "cultures" in a very specific meaning of that word. As Dr Hahn is fond of saying, "Culture arises from Cult" ... in other words, what we always think of as "civilization" has always grown out of the worship of particular deities in particular rituals (think of the Christmas season we are now in, the "Christ Mass" or the Catholic Mass in celebration of the birth of Christ) Marriage Dr Hahn is fond of noting in his classes that the Latin word for "oath" is Sacramentum, ie the Sacraments. One instance in which we can see the connection between the Sacraments and what has been said about oaths being characterized by the name of the god, is the making of the sign of the cross with Holy Water when entering a Church. Baptism is the Sacrament operating here, signing with Holy water is a calling to mind and a minor renewal of our baptismal vows through the use of a "sacramental" (Holy Water). Now, Baptism is done in the name of the god, which in Christianity is the distinctly triune God. Through the use of the same sacramental as used in Baptism (blessed water) we renew our baptismal vows by calling upon ourselves again that triune name. Given that we are talking about vows here, it is appropriate that we look at the institution of marriage for two reasons. First, marriage is probably the first instance that comes to mind when we ask the question, "Where do we see vows in our present culture?" Secondly, in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Theology, marriage is a sacrament. The Western (Catholic) View Every sacrament has several elements to it. There is the matter - such as water and the washing action in baptism - and the form - the Trinitarian formula, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Baptism - ... and there is also the matter of the minister. In baptism any human being who has the modicum of respect to be intending to do what the Church does can baptize. In normal circumstances an atheist baptizing somebody would not be licit (or allowed) but it would be valid , or effective (for instance if an atheist and a catechumenate were stranded on an island and the latter asked the former to baptize them before they die, and the former said 'but I don't believe in that' - they could still do it, even if they were just doing it out of respect for the latter's dying wishes). In the catholic view of marriage, a priest officiates a Catholic wedding, but the two spouses are the ministers of sacramental grace to each other. NOTE: This is why, in Catholic Theology, it is considered possible for, say, a marriage of two Protestants to be validly sacramental - albeit, in considering if a particular marriage was sacramental there is a good bit of information to be considered that is unique to those two unique spouses, but this is the case with every examination by a tribunal, of whether any particular marriage was validly sacramentally or null in that respect. If either person was not baptized it cannot be sacramental because Baptism is the sacrament that opens the door to the other sacraments. In marriages between Catholics there are certain factors which can make the marriage "pro-form a" null. But the general rule is, if the two people were Baptized using the Trinitarian formula, as many Protestants are, and they exchanged vows before God and witnesses of the church, they should be considered considered validly sacramentally married until an official ecclesial tribunal finds evidence and discerns otherwise. Eastern (Orthodox) View The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that the priest officiating is actually the minister of the grace to the spouses. Rowling's Unbreakable Vow As I said, I think it fitting to look at what Rowling's image implies about marriage since this is this foremost place most of us think about when we hear the word "vow" in our culture. I thought this was a very good image: Two with hands clasped together, a third who is witness and sort of participant. The third's wand is used and the magic brought forth is from that wand and thus objectively outside the 2 parties. Or maybe "transcendent" is a better term, maybe because the magic is FROM outside but works its way into the two, becomes immanent. "Transcendent" and "immanent" are here are terms of hierarchy rather than of mutual exclusivity. But it is the exchange of vows between the two parties that brings forth the magic: Two parties, a magic transcendent to them but enacted on/in them through their vows, that magic coming through the instrument of a third party witness/officiator. I think I begin to see how the disputation between the Western and Eastern view of who is the "minister" in the sacrament of marriage arises. All Grace comes through the ministry of the Church and the Priest is the official representative of the Church (and more than "in name only" ... his sacramental orders are a very almost physical bond). If the magic comes from Bella's wand, doesn't it seem as though she is somehow a KEY participant? In the end, though, the Western thought still holds true. Bella takes no direct action in any of the 3 dispersions of magic from her wand - each is directly pursuant to an exchange of vows solely between the two main parties. Till Death Do Us Part I take it that the significance of the fact that marriage has been looked at in conjunction with Rowling's "unbreakable vows" is evident. In Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Theology, a validly sacramental marriage is indissoluble until death. Note: Annulment is another matter and is not a "dissolving of a marriage." It is a discernment made by a tribunal with Ecclesially granted authority, that to the best of what can be discerned, from the very beginning there was something lacking in either the understanding or intention of one or both parties, that prevented the marriage from being validly sacramental (although this does not make it necessarily a "sin" if it involved genuine confusion etc ... and since the "marriage" was "licit" at the time ... children from an annulled marriage should not be viewed as illegitimate).