I would like to have an adequate solution to my conundrum, as it is a big stumbling block for me in accepting the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.
Greetings, jdconvert! Have you been following these posts? I’m sure I speak for more than myself in wondering if you have had any of your quandaries satisfied by our replies?
In any event, for yourself and/or others reading these threads, the following quotes from the USCCB and another reliable Catholic source may prove helpful.
I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn’t Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 “except for unchastity”?
What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthews 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.
newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm
And…
- [5:31–32] See Dt 24:1–5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
usccb.org/bible/mt/5:31
Thus, the prior two sources prove the consistency of the Roman Catholic Church in teaching against divorce. As others have noted, there is much more that could be done to reinforce these dogmas of the Church among the faithful.
A footnote to jdconvert: Don’t expect to become “sinless” when/if you finally decide to become a baptized Catholic! But DO EXPECT untold graces from Her sacraments to aid and assist you in seeking to learn holiness–marriage being one of those sacraments. As-a-matter-of-fact: Why wait to be baptized?
Sadly, however, high rates of Rotal reversals of American tribunal decisions and several very strong messages from the last few Popes are very good evidence that there are abuses.
