Can We Divorce if Fornication is Involved?

[Mike_D30]

*It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (5:31-32).

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder…Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so**…And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication**, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Mt. 19:4-9).*

So if my wife were to cheat on me, why can I not get a divorce from her, because of her fornication and re-marry?

This is a hypothetical, but I am curious.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Cheating is not fornication. Cheating is adultery. The precise meaning of the passages you cited is somewhat debated. There are three interpretations that are understood to be the possibilities. The reason that we know adultery is not grounds for divorce is because Jesus says, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” If Jesus meant that adultery was grounds for divorce, He would have said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for adultery, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” He uses both the word “fornication” and the word “adultery” in the same sentence, making it clear that they are not the same. As to what the passage means, this article ought to give you whatever answer you need: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Here is a simulated dialogue that may help as well:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509sbs.asp

 

[Batjacboy]

Lazerlike is exactly right.

As he said, and as his reference says, it all comes down to the porneia (fornication)/moicheia (adultery) issue. “Porneia is not the usual Greek term for adultery. Indeed, in the passages cited above, Jesus uses the term for adultery (moicheia).” (From Lazerlike’s first reference.)

The other thing that always struck me about Matthew 5:32 was that Christ said:

“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.”

It seems that the passage, as Christ stated it,(fornication, then adultery) implies that if the husband puts away the wife, he, in effect, leads her into sin (that is, if a husband puts away his wife, he propels her toward adultery). But if Christ had meant adultery in the first (the fornication) clause, the passage makes no sense:

“whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for adultery, maketh her to commit adultery.”

In this interpretation, she’s *already * committed adultery, so why would there be any surprise she’d go out and do it again once she was put away?

 

[Mike_D30]

I read the apologetics and I don’t think they are very convincing on this issue:

1. It states that only one Gospel proclaims the idea that fornication is a means for divorce. However you can’t have it both ways, there’s plenty of Catholic beliefs where we have that rely on one Gospel.
2. Fornication is the act one commits, and adultery is the result. I think it’s just a different wording. To me it means a man can’t leave his wife unless she sleeps wth another man, if he does it makes her an adulterer.

Perhaps it’s better to explain what fornication as an exemption for marriage could be? Fornication is defined as:

“Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other”

However 2000 years ago it could’ve had a different meaning. Fornication is from the Latin fornix, which derives from “a vault or an arch”, which is to describe where prostitutes apply their trade. So are we to believe that Christ mean that you can only divorce your wife, if you find out she is a prostitue?

So the question remaines, what did Christ mean when he said ‘fornication’ in those cited verses?

I don’t know maybe, but it seems to be some real mental gymnastics going on on this one. For me at least, thanks for the responses.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (5:31-32).

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder…Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so*…And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication***, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Mt. 19:4-9).

So if my wife were to cheat on me, why can I not get a divorce from her, because of her fornication and re-marry?

This is a hypothetical, but I am curious.

You can divorce if she cheats if necessary, you just can’t remarry. The original meaning of the word translated fornication meant incest. If it was discovered that you and your wife were close relatives the Church would find the marriage invalid and you could marry again.

 

[Batjacboy]

Mike,

Yeah, it depends on how you define the terms.

Here’s another definition:
*
“Sex between unmarried persons is distinguished from adultery by use of the term ‘simple fornication’; whereas relations in which at least one of the parties is married, is considered ‘adultery’.”*

I recently heard Jimmy Akin say during one of the Open Forums on CA radio that it’s considered fornication only if both are unmarried (i.e., to anyone); if at least one of them is married, it’s adultery for both.

Now he was making the distinction between the legal use and the moral use, but I can’t remember which applies to your definition, and which applies to the one I quoted above.

 

[Batjacboy]

Br. Rich SFO:

You can divorce if she cheats if necessary, you just can’t remarry.

But, as I’m sure Br. Rich would agree, this is a civil divorce; Christ was not implying that it was OK to divorce in cases of adultery.