J
joclucsylv
Guest
Thanks!
- Status
B
beth40n2
Guest
Catechism on Divorce
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1
G 31,849-852.
179 Cf. FC 84.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1
G 31,849-852.179 Cf. FC 84.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
S
Spencerian
Guest
To add to Beth’s notes from the Catechism:
While the Church does not recognize divorce as a dissolution of a marriage between two validly baptized persons (nor have they the authority to dissolve the bond of such a marriage), they have the authority to authorize the dissolution of a non-sacramental marriage between two persons, unbaptized at the time of their wedding, if one in the party has chosen the Catholic faith, if their former spouse does not want to join the faith, and when the person that chooses the faith desires to marry another unmarried Catholic in the Church. This special exception, based on 1 Corinithians 7:10-15, is the Pauline Privilege.
A similar “favor of the faith” exception, where one of the members of a marriage was baptized at the time of the wedding, is the Petrine Privilege, based on 1 Ezra 10-14. This Scripture wasn’t written by Peter, as the name might imply (as the Pauline clause does with St. Paul). The Petrine Privilege is granted to the office of the Chair of St. Peter, the Pope, to review and allow the dissolution of a such a marriage. While the Pauline Privilege can be done at the diocesan level, the Petrine Privilege, as noted, is done through Rome specifically.
The Code of Canon Law, items 1141 through 1150, detail these exceptions in the Church.
While the Church does not recognize divorce as a dissolution of a marriage between two validly baptized persons (nor have they the authority to dissolve the bond of such a marriage), they have the authority to authorize the dissolution of a non-sacramental marriage between two persons, unbaptized at the time of their wedding, if one in the party has chosen the Catholic faith, if their former spouse does not want to join the faith, and when the person that chooses the faith desires to marry another unmarried Catholic in the Church. This special exception, based on 1 Corinithians 7:10-15, is the Pauline Privilege.
A similar “favor of the faith” exception, where one of the members of a marriage was baptized at the time of the wedding, is the Petrine Privilege, based on 1 Ezra 10-14. This Scripture wasn’t written by Peter, as the name might imply (as the Pauline clause does with St. Paul). The Petrine Privilege is granted to the office of the Chair of St. Peter, the Pope, to review and allow the dissolution of a such a marriage. While the Pauline Privilege can be done at the diocesan level, the Petrine Privilege, as noted, is done through Rome specifically.
The Code of Canon Law, items 1141 through 1150, detail these exceptions in the Church.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Jesus allowed divorce only in cases where the Law had been violated in contracting the marriage–the same basis the Church uses to judge if a valid marriage has occured. the annulment investigation looks at conditions in natural law and church law to see if everything was in order when the original marriage took place.
J
joclucsylv
Guest
I am curious, because a friend of mine says that she has biblical reasons to get divorced because her husband committed adultry. Where would the scripture be on this?? Thank you!!!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you would have to ask her what scripture she is using
the citations for the catechism teaching are in the footnotes of the passage cited by previous poster
J
joclucsylv
Guest
OK thankyou!! I will look at my catechism!!
A
Andrew1980
Guest
I would guess she is referring to the verse (not sure what ones) that says something along the lines of adultry being grounds for a divorce. The Lord replies something to the effect that it is because of the hardness of our hearts that he allows divorce for that reason, but from the beginning it wasn’t so, or something to that effect.
C
CastingCrown
Guest
That’s probably because of how the Bible she uses translates Matthew 19:9:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another woman commits adultery”
The problem is the word “porneia” has a spectrum of meanings.
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another woman commits adultery”
The problem is the word “porneia” has a spectrum of meanings.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Jesus said, "because of the hardness of our hearts, MOSES permitted it, but from the beginning it was not so."
N
noprem
Guest
Not a problem to most wives, when their husbands stray.
There are many principles that teach us God’s thinking on the matter, regardless of problems of translation.
First, Gen 2:24, quoted by Jesus at Mt 19:5. The next verse gives us the logical result- man [shouldn’t] sunder what God has joined; the basis of Church teaching.
But there’s more: The OT is full of references to the searching after false gods by Israel. Many of these liken it to spiritual adultery (some quite graphically), for which Jehovah finally ‘sundered’ his connection with his chosen ones. This indicates that Jesus was allowing the principle to be used in human affairs. Note also that he was specific- “except for adultery”. Although porneia indeed covers many types of sexual offenses, the Lord’s reference to “wife” and “marries” serves to limit the discussion in this case.
Another princple: God’s mercy teaches us that the injured spouse may forgive the offender, but must do so wholeheartedly. The old adultery laws of the western world acknowleged this in recognizing an act of intercourse to be also an act of forgiveness.
I
inkaneer
Guest
She can be divorced for any reason. Divorce is a secular civil procedure and has no ecclesiatical standing. So a person can end a marriage according to the civil law but they are still married according to the church. So she can be divorced BUT she cannot remarry as long as her husband is alive…
W
White_Peony
Guest
Jesus said in Matthew that no man may divorce his wife except for sexual immorality.
L
LPS
Guest
Today I was reading the last chapter of Ezra, and many men in Israel had taken wives from other peoples. God was angry about that; a gathering was called and all of the men who had taken wives were named. This is what they agreed to do:
19 And they gave their hands to put away their wives, and to offer for their offence a ram of the flock.
furthermore …
44 All these had taken strange wives, and there were among them women that had borne children.
I’m not making a case “for” divorce by any means, but the OP asked about Biblical cases for divorce and it appears this was one instance. However, in the NT 1 Cor 7 we know:
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
I’m not certain in the Ezra passage whether the foreign wives were considered to be “unbelievers,” or if those marriages were considered to be adultery since to the Jews, marrying outside the tribes was the “real” definition of adultery - if something is adulterated, it is mixed in with impurities
19 And they gave their hands to put away their wives, and to offer for their offence a ram of the flock.
furthermore …
44 All these had taken strange wives, and there were among them women that had borne children.
I’m not making a case “for” divorce by any means, but the OP asked about Biblical cases for divorce and it appears this was one instance. However, in the NT 1 Cor 7 we know:
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
I’m not certain in the Ezra passage whether the foreign wives were considered to be “unbelievers,” or if those marriages were considered to be adultery since to the Jews, marrying outside the tribes was the “real” definition of adultery - if something is adulterated, it is mixed in with impurities
N
noprem
Guest
BTW I notice that many of the replies mention Church doctrine and catechisms. If your friend is Roman Catholic then those replies may be of use. My reply (below) is in answer to your question: “biblical reasons”.
And I perhaps should have mentioned that the same principles and examples I cited apply to remarriage- it is permitted in case there was a scriptural divorce.
I
indymb
Guest
I am beginning the civil process of divorcing my spouse in full recognition of Church teaching, and, even after 25 year, I will at least advance the case for an annulment. I am preparing to for the event that annulment is not accepted
I wonder about an occasion when a spouse is discovered in an affair with one person, and counseling ensues, followed by revelations that the spouse is continuing fantasizing about that affair with friends and maintaining contact, followed by more counseling, then found in the embrace of another. “We’re just friends,” is the spouse’s reply to all instances.
Aside from physically separating for a time, which hasn’t worked in the past, nor has numerous counseling sessions, what is left besides divorce to anneal the pain of these transgressions?
My kids may want me to elaborate from a faith perspective at some point.
I wonder about an occasion when a spouse is discovered in an affair with one person, and counseling ensues, followed by revelations that the spouse is continuing fantasizing about that affair with friends and maintaining contact, followed by more counseling, then found in the embrace of another. “We’re just friends,” is the spouse’s reply to all instances.
Aside from physically separating for a time, which hasn’t worked in the past, nor has numerous counseling sessions, what is left besides divorce to anneal the pain of these transgressions?
My kids may want me to elaborate from a faith perspective at some point.
T
trdchubi
Guest
No where. Jesus at no time stated that sexual immorality (adultery) was the ONLY “just-cause” basis for a morally lawful divorce.
"
4 Jesus replied, “Haven’t you read that in the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?—(Genesis 1:27) 5 He said, ‘That’s why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two will become one.’—(Genesis 2:24) 6 They are no longer two, but one. So a man must not separate what God has joined together.” Matthew 19:3-6
Jesus let those who had asked the question understand that no person had a right to desire the spouse of another and attempt to seduce him/her away from his/her spouse.
And how about the Life story of Hosea and his sexually immoral wife? Did God allowed Hosea to divorce her despite being described as someone fit to be stoned?
L
LPS
Guest
There is also the story of Michal. Saul had promised her to David in marriage, but then gave her to Paltiel to marry instead.
Then, we see:
2Sa 3:14 At the same time David sent messengers to Ishbaal, son of Saul, to say, Give me my wife Michal, whom I espoused by paying a hundred Philistine foreskins.
2Sa 3:15 Ishbaal sent for her and took her away from her husband Paltiel, son of Laish,
2Sa 3:16 who followed her weeping as far as Bahurim. But Abner said to him, Go back! And he turned back.
This passage clearly states that Paltiel is her husband, but in the interest of making a deal with David Ishbaal acquiesced to David.
Then, we see:
2Sa 3:14 At the same time David sent messengers to Ishbaal, son of Saul, to say, Give me my wife Michal, whom I espoused by paying a hundred Philistine foreskins.
2Sa 3:15 Ishbaal sent for her and took her away from her husband Paltiel, son of Laish,
2Sa 3:16 who followed her weeping as far as Bahurim. But Abner said to him, Go back! And he turned back.
This passage clearly states that Paltiel is her husband, but in the interest of making a deal with David Ishbaal acquiesced to David.
N
noprem
Guest
An excellent catch! It’s always best to ‘let the Bible teach the Bible’. Ezra’s day was indeed a special situation. The Law discouraged Jews from marrying outside the faith, but in such cases the outside spouse was to ‘convert’. This had not been done; the foreign wives were continuing their false worship. (Remember what happened to Solomon?) Other conditions prevailed also. So, with Yahweh’s approval, Ezra and the men acted as indicated. BTW they had to send back the wives with adequate financial provision.
Paul’s counsel was correct, sensible, and fair. One modern application is in cases of domestic violence. The wife (usually) can separate for safety reasons, can obtain a restraining order, and get a civil divorce. She cannot remarry unless it’s shown the ex took up with another woman. (I’m talking scripture here, not Church.)
Your comment on adulteration is well made. Yahweh exercised supreme patience with Israel’s many affairs with false gods, before ‘taking her to court’. (Hosea 2:2 et seq; Mt 23: 37-39)
- Status