Since you brought it up again.
When a marriage fails, the Roman Catholic Church seems to think that its due to a technical flaw because in their mind it cannot fail. But what they fail to grasp ,,,
When I read a pompous, simplistic misrepresentation as this I'm reluctant to respond (as I was when I read it initially) unless I can be in for the long haul. The theology that is the basis for the Catholic marriage canons is, I believe, correct. Do YOU
know what it is?
...is that humans can fail even when God does not. Even if the marriage was performed perfectly, and even if the parties fully intended to keep their vows, the marriage can still fail.
True. Obvious. Well-known.
The marriage IS valid and did happen and you cannot say that it did not. The Roman Catholic Church can say that it will not divorce or annul them in this case, but on a pastoral level it knows that those are not practical options.
I do not know this hidden mind of the Church as you do.
So more often than not, at least in Malta,
From what I've read lately, all of Malta is especially in need of conversion --- something of the (Catholic) Nineveh of our present time.[See, e.g. Catholic Malta legalises gay marriage – how did it happen?
... it will make excuses for annulment because it created an impossible situation where they cannot be seperated but cannot be together either. In such cases, in my opinion, divorce like the Orthodox Church gives, based on oikonomia, is the honest response.
But does it preserve the true theology of marriage? A second (Orthodox) marriage, oikonomia
invoked or not, is understood theologically as penitential.
Both annulment and divorce would be sinful, but one is dishonest while the other leads to repentance and healing.
So the Orthodox position as you state it is that they at least permit sinning as long as it's not "dishonest."
Which brings me to my query
I'm not Orthodox, don't know the Orthodox responses, so can't comment.
With all that said, you do have a point: Catholic annulment is (like) Orthodox divorce? I think it's good and honest to review Catholic marriage theology as does the recent Amoris laetitia
. I don't think it's option of, as it seems, let's poke around and see what may work, is sound. I would want that the lofty -- and correct -- theology based on Ephesians 5:32 be foremost as always. But what happens when the sacramental sign is gone? For instance, in the Eucharist, if the sign, the appearance of the bread or wine is absent, becomes lost, there is no sacramental presence. What is the case when the Christian marriage is no longer, or even the opposite, of the sign it is to be, the union and love of Christ and His Spouse, the Church (Ephesians 5:25)?