Catholics, what does Matthew's exception clause mean?

[rcwitness]

Hello brothers,
I would like to ask Catholics, since it hasnt been very responsive asking non-Catholic Christians.

What did Jesus mean when He said…

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (Porneia), and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

 

[rcwitness]

The reason I ask is because there seems to be two different interpretations of this exception by Catholics.

Either He is saying a valid Sacrament can be divorced (though only a civil divorce and separation) yet remarriage not possible, or He is actually referring to a union which has been bound through sex, yet is not a Sacrament.

Which is it???

 

[Fauken]

From Haydock’s commentary:

Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matt. xix. 9. Wi. — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. Aug. de bon. conjug. c. vii. B.

So basically, they live separately and do not actually divorce.

 

[rcwitness]

You see, this interpretation says that Jesus was talking about a valid Sacrament. The NAB footnote says He was talking about an INVALID Sacrament.

 

[Gorgias]

You see, this interpretation says that Jesus was talking about a valid Sacrament. The NAB footnote says He was talking about an INVALID Sacrament.

Right. The Church does not teach that infidelity justifies divorce.

Rather, the Church teaches that this is a statement about unlawful marriage. In other words, nullity is possible – but only in cases in which the marriage wasn’t valid in the first place.

 

[rcwitness]

Where does the Church Teach this?

Because this is my whole point, that even though the Church is quite clear that remarriage is prohibited by Jesus, the official meaning of this exception is interpreted two different ways.

 

[rcwitness]

NAB footnote to Matthew 5:32

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.

 

[Gorgias]

Where does the Church Teach this?

CCC 2382:

The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”

This paragraph states that:

• a marriage that is ratified and consummated, between two baptized persons, cannot be dissolved. Period.
• Jesus did away with “legal divorce”.

Note that this only addresses sacramental marriages that are ratum et consummatum. It does not address others as being indissoluble.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Where does the Church Teach this?

CCC 2382:

The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”

This paragraph states that:

• a marriage that is ratified and consummated, between two baptized persons, cannot be dissolved. Period.
• Jesus did away with “legal divorce”.

Note that this only addresses sacramental marriages that are ratum et consummatum. It does not address others as being indissoluble.

Yes, that is the Church’s position. But im asking a slightly different question. How does the Church officially interpret the exception clause, because historically its primarily been viewed as the RSV-CE footnote expresses, but the NAB footnote interprets it differently.

Personally, i find the NAB explanaition most accurate. And it means that Jesus wasnt referring to a sexual immorality by one spouse with a person other than their husband/wife, but rather the actual sexual union between the two which are joined!

 

[Gorgias]

But im asking a slightly different question. How does the Church officially interpret the exception clause, because historically its primarily been viewed as the RSV-CE footnote expresses, but the NAB footnote interprets it differently.

I’m not seeing the distinction in your “slightly different question.”

As we look at the Church’s positions on marriage, divorce, and nullity, we see how she interprets it: no divorce, nullity only possible in cases which (technically) aren’t divorce.

(After all, if the interpretation were ‘infidelity’, then that would be a valid reason for nullity… but it’s not.)

 

[rcwitness]

So by your understanding, Catholic Annulments would always refer to a form of “porneia” which Jesus was addressing?

Which interpretation is it? That He was only allowing a separation for a valid Christian marriage, or that He was referring to a union which was not binding by God???

 

[Elf01]

Both, a valid Christian marriage is bound by God.

 

[rcwitness]

Both, a valid Christian marriage is bound by God.

I doubt Jesus meant both. They are fundamentally different, even if neither contradicts the fact that a Christian marriage cant be dissolved.

 

[Gorgias]

So by your understanding, Catholic Annulments would always refer to a form of “porneia” which Jesus was addressing?

An “unlawful marriage”? Yep.

It’s important to note, though, that while we might recognize that Christ was talking about marriages that were unlawful under Jewish law, strictly speaking, the Church extends the concept to marriages that are ‘unlawful’ under canon law.

Which interpretation is it? That He was only allowing a separation for a valid Christian marriage, or that He was referring to a union which was not binding by God???

Hmm… neither, I think? On one hand, “valid Christian marriages” cannot be dissolved, so that one isn’t in play. On the other hand, “marriage enjoys the favor of the law”, so all marriages that have been entered into in good faith (attempting to give valid consent, without known impediment, and according to any applicable form) are treated as valid (unless a later request for nullity makes it necessary to investigate the validity).

 

[rcwitness]

Let me ask you as clearly as i can…

What did Jesus mean by the exception clause, and where does the Church officially express this?

 

[1ke]

The reason I ask is because there seems to be two different interpretations of this exception by Catholics.

There is only one interpretation of this passage. The authoritative one.

If a Catholic has another interpretation, they need fraternal correction.

 

[rcwitness]

And which interpretation is that?

 

[Gorgias]

Let me ask you as clearly as i can…

What did Jesus mean by the exception clause, and where does the Church officially express this?

Let me answer you as clearly as I can…

We infer the Church’s interpretation of the “exception clause” by virtue of the Church’s stance on marriage, divorce, and nullity. That inference is what I’ve explained, upthread.

If you’re looking for an official document that says plainly what you’re asking, in the manner in which you ask it, then that’s a pretty tall order. However, if you look at the Catechism’s list of Scriptural citations, you’ll see that Mt 19:9 is referenced at the paragraph in the Catechism which I quoted for you.

One last thought: although the NAB and RSV-CE are officially recognized translations, that does not imply that their footnotes are similarly considered expressions of doctrine. So, I wouldn’t put too much stock in them…

 

[rcwitness]

Well one of those positions (footnotes from NAB and RSV-CE) must be correct. But they cant both be correct, even though both may not contradict the final position of the Church.

I find that the NAB seems more likely. And im also curious where the earliest form of this view is recorded

 

[rcwitness]

Paul addresses BOTH situations, but they are separately done so.

One, he addresses the Pauline privilege, which has to do with porneia (non-believing spouse) AND he addresses a separation without remarriage.