Chicago's Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions, but person's conscience inviolable

[Brendan]

If this is indeed correct, one does wonder what Joseph Ratzinger was thinking when he said what he did in the quote you provided in your comment #233.

I would state that he meant exactly what he stated, “ecclesial authority”. What does it mean for an authority to be ecclesial?

Would you not agree that there is a distinction between laws that are Divine in origin ( Divine authority) and laws that are based on the authority of the Church.

For example, if a bishop established particular law that required standing after the Agnus Dei, that law in not based upon divine law, but upon the authority of the Church . It is ecclesial as opposed to divine.

It is within the realm of Reason, therefore, that a well formed conscience could lead one to kneel after the Agnus Dei.

But conversely, laws that are known to be Divine in origin, such as the intrinsically evil nature of artificial contraception, are not the result of ecclesial authority, but God. Therefore the law written on the heart bu God must, by definition, correspond to the Divine law.

 

[Mongo]

Matthew5:31-32.

 

[JimG]

Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

But if you wish to engage in scriptural exegesis about divorce and remarriage, I would refer you to the following article:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

 

[zz912]

Well, could you perhaps cite a specific verse in Matthew, Mark or Luke where Jesus says a second marriage is adultery?

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’** 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Mark 10:2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”**

 

[Thomas_White]

Matthew5:31-32.

“But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). [emphasis added]

Here it is the wife who is put away (divorced) that is said to be made [forced, required, not of her will] to commit adultery by her husband. Marriage is not yet mentioned. Could you show me any verse in Matthew, Mark or Luke where Jesus says that the one who is put away or divorced commits adultery?

What then is adultery if the wife is made to commit this sin before even remarrying?

 

[clem456]

Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

But if you wish to engage in scriptural exegesis about divorce and remarriage, I would refer you to the following article:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

As regards the topic of conscience, it seems the operative words in this passage are bolded:

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt. 19:3–8; cf. Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:18)

Jesus is not accepting any mis-formed conscience here.
He is asking then in effect: “Have you not read this, studied what is revealed, thought about it, prayed over it, absorbed it, committed to it, conformed yourself to it?” He is not accommodating their mis-perceptions, he is asking them to observe what is revealed and conform to it,

 

[Thomas_White]

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Does Jesus say the wife who is divorced commits adultery? I do not believe you will find where Jesus does say it, in Matthew, Mark or Luke, about either a husband or wife who is divorced.

 

[Thomas_White]

10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Does this verse say that the one divorced commits adultery? It is the verse quoted by the CCC.

 

[Mongo]

Does this verse say that the one divorced commits adultery? It is the verse quoted by the CCC.

Yes it does. It is a direct statement and it says they commit adultery. I don’t see how you can question it. It seems that we have a breakdown in language and communication. You are denying that the words mean what they mean.

 

[JimG]

I would also note that a marriage, if valid, is valid for both parties, and thus remarriage, if attempted is adultery for both parties, whether guilty of the breakup or not. There is no way to say that one party to a divorce commits adultery by remarriage but the other party does not.

 

[DaveBj]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, **“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Does this verse say that the one divorced commits adultery? It is the verse quoted by the CCC.
.**

If one reads the verse, one will find that it says that whoever “divorces . . . and marries another” is the one who commits adultery, not just the one who divorces or is divorced. Two actions are listed as prerequisites for the charge of adultery, not just the divorce by itself.

 

[Thomas_White]

If one reads the verse, one will find that it says that whoever “divorces . . . and marries another” is the one who commits adultery, not just the one who divorces or is divorced. Two actions are listed as prerequisites for the charge of adultery, not just the divorce by itself.

I am only trying to understand something that seems elusive and see the forum as a place for discussion.

If a husband divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery. Here it is the husband who commits adultery.

If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Here it is the wife who commits adultery.

The wife (or the spouse) who is put away is made to commit adultery, in Marthew 5:32. Marriage, however, is not mentioned, but whoever would later marry her does commit adultery. But nowhere in the verses does it say that the one put away or divorced commits adultery. It appears that unless a divorced person remarries, whatever adultery would mean is excused except for the person who later marries the divorced person. In the event of a second married, it is the one who marries the divorced person that is said to commit adultery.

This is difficult to understand, or at least not easily. Adultery would seem to mean something more than today’s standard definition of the word and very possibly ‘lust’. If so, this could occur even within a valid Catholic marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

“But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28) [emphasis added]

Marriage is not mentioned in this verse.

 

[DaveBj]

I am only trying to understand something that seems elusive and see the forum as a place for discussion.

If a husband divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery. Here it is the husband who commits adultery.

If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Here it is the wife who commits adultery.

The wife (or the spouse) who is put away is made to commit adultery, in Marthew 5:32. Marriage, however, is not mentioned, but whoever would later marry her does commit adultery. But nowhere in the verses does it say that the one put away or divorced commits adultery. It appears that unless a divorced person remarries, whatever adultery would mean is excused except for the person who later marries the divorced person. In the event of a second married, it is the one who marries the divorced person that is said to commit adultery.

This is difficult to understand, or at least not easily

You bring up a good point (the divorced wife being made to commit adultery) that is not easily understood without an understanding of the culture of those days. Back then in the Jewish culture, a divorced wife got nothing – no division of communal property, no alimony, no child support (if she was even able to take the children of the marriage with her), nothing. She was cast out with the clothes on her back, and that was it. And a woman without family males (father, brothers, husband, adult sons) to protect her was a non-person. It wasn’t like she could go get a job waitressing at the Waffle House down the street. There simply were no economic opportunities for divorced women in that situation. (Or widows, which is why the death of the widow’s son in Nain was so tragic – read about that in Luke 7:11-17.) There were only two things that a woman in that situation could do – marry another man (and commit adultery), or become a prostitute (and commit adultery). That’s why Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery.

 

[Ender]

If it cannot be understood that Huck does the right thing by setting Jim free from slavery, I have no answer for you.

If Huck does what he thinks is right, what his conscience leads him to do, then it becomes right for him regardless of what he chooses to do. Why is freeing Jim the “right” thing? If Jim’s conscience calls him to return Jim to slavery, that is what he must do. That, according to you, is what the church calls him to do: follow his conscience regardless. According to Twain, Jim violates his conscience by freeing Jim, which by definition is a sin.

You cannot say “this is right” or “that is wrong” if everything turns on the individual’s conscience. On what basis can we say Huck was wrong by following his conscience even if it led to Jim’s return to slavery?

Ender

 

[clem456]

If Huck does what he thinks is right, what his conscience leads him to do, then it becomes right for him regardless of what he chooses to do.

Did you really intend to say that? Possible there is some devils advocate going on here that I am missing.

Why is freeing Jim the “right” thing? If Jim’s conscience calls him to return Jim to slavery, that is what he must do.

If that is what his conscience dictates, that is what he probably will do, or what he is likely to do, given the guidance of his conscience. What he must do is, the right thing. Objectively speaking. If his conscience dictates otherwise, he is simply ignorant of the truth and not properly formed.

That, according to you, is what the church calls him to do: follow his (properly formed) conscience regardless. According to Twain, Jim violates his conscience by freeing Jim, which by definition is a sin.

He does not violate his conscience. His conscience somehow knows what the right thing to do is. We don’t know how he knows. (I’m sure Twain had a point here about the durability and courage of a properly formed conscience in the face of erroneous teaching.) He does the moral thing, which cannot be a sin.

 

[Ender]

Could you show me any verse in Matthew, Mark or Luke where Jesus says that the one who is put away or divorced commits adultery?

The insistence that something must appear in the Gospels for it to be accepted is contrary to Catholic teaching. It doesn’t need to appear in the Bible. It is sufficient that it is what the church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Did you really intend to say that? Possible there is some devils advocate going on here that I am missing.

I am attempting to demonstrate the implications of the concept of “primacy of conscience.” This is what leads to the strangeness you found in the post.

If that is what his conscience dictates, that is what he probably will do, or what he is likely to do, given the guidance of his conscience. What he must do is, the right thing. Objectively speaking. If his conscience dictates otherwise, he is simply ignorant of the truth and not properly formed.

As you understand the conscience, this is true. If, however, the conscience is primary, then there are no claims of truth, or at least none that can override what the conscience believes.

Ender

 

[clem456]

I am attempting to demonstrate the implications of the concept of “primacy of conscience.” This is what leads to the strangeness you found in the post.

As you understand the conscience, this is true. If, however, the conscience is primary, then there are no claims of truth, or at least none that can override what the conscience believes.

Ender

my bad

 

[Thomas_White]

You bring up a good point (the divorced wife being made to commit adultery) that is not easily understood without an understanding of the culture of those days. Back then in the Jewish culture, a divorced wife got nothing – no division of communal property, no alimony, no child support (if she was even able to take the children of the marriage with her), nothing. She was cast out with the clothes on her back, and that was it. And a woman without family males (father, brothers, husband, adult sons) to protect her was a non-person. It wasn’t like she could go get a job waitressing at the Waffle House down the street. There simply were no economic opportunities for divorced women in that situation. (Or widows, which is why the death of the widow’s son in Nain was so tragic – read about that in Luke 7:11-17.) There were only two things that a woman in that situation could do – marry another man (and commit adultery), or become a prostitute (and commit adultery). That’s why Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery.

Yes, I knew this. Thanks. It is an exception. There is also Matthew 5:22 and further teaching in Matthew 19 as well, which in part is as follows: In Matthew 19:18, Jesus says, “That shalt not do murder, thou shalt not commit adultery…” In all, six commandments are spoken.

“And when they heard this, the disciples wondered very much saying: Who then can be saved? And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:25-26).

With respect to Matthew 5:22, it would seem that ‘lust’, likely as the result of Original Sin, results in man’s inclination toward sins of flesh and thus presents what is “impossible” for him to avoid. But with God, “all things are possible”. This surely concerns God’s mercy and forgiveness, just as it would seem it does for the wife divorced by her husband. Since man’s inclinations are impossible for him, the teaching is that God’s mercy and forgiveness provide hope and salvation.

I do think the word ‘adultery’, as used in the Gospels, means something more than its common definition and as such is a much more significant issue.