Church teaching on Divorce

[Frankk]

I’ve asked this on the ‘Ask an Apologist’ Forum but not received a reply, so thought I’d try here:

The Church teaches that divorce is forbidden. Someone who is divorced in a civil court by their partner is still deemed married by the Church and forbidden to remarry. However, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus quite explicitly allows for divorce in the case of ‘formication’ - and says this on two occasions.

Why does the Church ignore this teaching or, rather, interprets its position in favour of Luke and Mark, rather than Matthew?

We also have the potential for someone in a terrible marriage [spouse beater, alcoholic, adulterous, drug addict… you get the picture] who is then abandoned by this person. The guilty party may go on to have another life remarrying, having children and so on… While the innocent party, loyal to their faith, is condemned to live a life alone and lonely.

Where is the moral justice in this? Where is the Natural Law of the right to happiness? OK, we may never achieve happiness but should we be forbidden to try and achieve it in a loving relationship with the possibility of having children and grandchildren?

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve asked this on the ‘Ask an Apologist’ Forum but not received a reply, so thought I’d try here:

The Church teaches that divorce is forbidden. Someone who is divorced in a civil court by their partner is still deemed married by the Church and forbidden to remarry. However, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus quite explicitly allows for divorce in the case of ‘formication’ - and says this on two occasions.

Why does the Church ignore this teaching or, rather, interprets its position in favour of Luke and Mark, rather than Matthew?The Church does not. The English translation in certain cases there leads one to a wrong conclusion. see catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

We also have the potential for someone in a terrible marriage [spouse beater, alcoholic, adulterous, drug addict… you get the picture] who is then abandoned by this person. The guilty party may go on to have another life remarrying, having children and so on… While the innocent party, loyal to their faith, is condemned to live a life alone and lonely.

yes such is a very horrible sin …done by the other person…but unless it is a invalid marriage (which it may be) …while the spouse lives it will be adultery for the either to attempt to marry another. And Jesus etc teach this…we can not change it.

The person who is committing adultery etc will be judged accordingly…

Where is the moral justice in this? Where is the Natural Law of the right to happiness? OK, we may never achieve happiness but should we be forbidden to try and achieve it in a loving relationship with the possibility of having children and grandchildren?

If one is married…then one simply can not (if it is valid) marry another…it is the nature of marriage. Not injustice …truth.

 

[Rascalking]

This is a really, really tough teaching by the church. If anyone has even the slightest bit of compassion, they will understand this.

I don’t get it, personally. (No, I’m not saying that I don’t accept it, I just don’t get it) If one spouse horribly mistreats the other, then that other-sinless in the case-doesn’t have recourse. It’s truly not fair to the other person.

Catholics need to have much more compassion for divorced people. Period.

 

[Bookcat]

This is a really, really tough teaching by the church. If anyone has even the slightest bit of compassion, they will understand this.

I don’t get it, personally. (No, I’m not saying that I don’t accept it, I just don’t get it) If one spouse horribly mistreats the other, then that other-sinless in the case-doesn’t have recourse. It’s truly not fair to the other person.

Catholics need to have much more compassion for divorced people. Period.

Of course…compassion! Of course. The Heart of Jesus calls us to compassion.

and it needs to be “truth in charity”…love those who have been treated like this…and even look into if it was a true marriage…if it was…then still have compassion and help them to live the truth as a disciple of Jesus…assisting with love, support, prayer etc

 

[Gem]

Civil divorce, in itself, is not a sin and may be necessary for the safety of the wife and kids.

If there are grounds for a declaration of nullity in the marriage, then by all means petition for one. But don’t deceive yourself.

One’s marriage is a pledge to God as much as to one’s spouse. The sin of your spouse has no bearing on that promise. Leaving a marriage to seek “happiness” is not allowed by either party. There are lots of things people can choose to do in this life for which they will be punished in the next. Happiness in heaven - forever - is what really matters here.

“Fornication” is not an accurate translation of the Greek. It is more like an unlawful union.

Is it unfair in the near term? You bet. But, in the end, God is just.

The chance at an annulment should also be seen as a mercy from God, not a hassle or a right. It helps to remember that the Church has God’s own authority and DOES speak for God in these matters rather than seeing annulment tribunals as some kind of priestly bureaucracy.

Gem

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This is a really, really tough teaching by the church. If anyone has even the slightest bit of compassion, they will understand this.

I don’t get it, personally. (No, I’m not saying that I don’t accept it, I just don’t get it) If one spouse horribly mistreats the other, then that other-sinless in the case-doesn’t have recourse. It’s truly not fair to the other person.

Catholics need to have much more compassion for divorced people. Period.

It can be tough, and compassion is definitely necessary. I do want to point out though that in a case such as this, the unfairness is the fault the abusive spouse rather than the teaching, and that recourse/justice etc certainly will happen. It just might take until one or both people dies.

May not make it much easier, but worth remembering.

 

[twoangels]

I’m going to say right off the bat that what I’m giving are my own personal reflections on my understanding of the passage. I have SOME understanding of a very limited number of Greek words. I have SOME understanding of etomology and SOME of the history I’m giving. I’m not a scholar. I’m making lose connections based on what I’ve read over the years and connections I’ve made. More knowledge could lead me in another direction.

So here goes. The passage in question uses the word “Pornia.” Its a word used in many other sections and overall is translated multiple ways. Sometimes its translated as adultery, sometimes its translated as sexual immorality, sometimes its translated as fornication, etc. Its a word that within context can refer to something more specific than general sexual immorality, but since we our outside of the context of the culture at the time the passage was written by the human authors (though we Catholics do believe it is Divine Relevation and that God is the author working through human authors), its really up to the translator to determine what english word its going to be translated to.

Its sort of like how vague the word “Love” is in English. Greek had multiple different words that we all just use the word “Love” to refer to. As such, in translating some of the Bible’s passages into English (there’s a passage at the end of John’s Gospel where Christ keeps asking Peter “Do you love me?”) some of the meaning of the passages are lost in translation. As such in John’s Gospel, it sounds to us like Christ is saying “Do you love me?” over and over while Peter keeps affirming he does. We totally lose out that Peter is answering with a different word with a slightly different meaning than what Christ is using and that Peter gets upset when Christ changes his word and uses the exact same word Peter was using to affirm his love for Christ.

Well the refer happens with the word Pornia. Our language dissects sexual sins into very specific behaviors. Greek doesn’t. But just as when I say “I love chocolate” and “I love my brother” and “I love my husband”, we all understand that in our minds love is a united concept, but also that there are different forms of it and we get from the context and our culture exactly what we mean by the term in specific contexts. You don’t get into debates over whether because Tom said he loves chocolate, that he’s looking to marry chocolate or that a componant of his love includes sexual desires toward chocolate.

Well, the early Christians understand sexual immorality in sort of the same way. They weren’t getting into the nitty gritty specifics of sexual immorality expressed in the differences between fornication, promiscuity, adultery, etc. There may have been some other words that referred to types of sinners (like prostitutes), but in regards to just the word for the sin, most of the time the word used is the vague word of “pornia.” This leaves translators a bit of a problem because if they define it as sexual immorality, it can become too vague and actually prevent the context from making it more specific, but if you go for a specific word, you can end up going for the wrong word or there could be a problem that what the word is referring to, our language simply doesnot have a good word for.

As such, I’ve seen it translated multiple ways, and I’ve seen plenty of debates about it. From that point on, I have to look past Scripture and to Sacred Tradition and to the authority of the Catholic Church. And it seems clear from there that Christ was not giving a reason to divorce.

Speculations? Perhaps it referred to couples who had no marriage contract but cohabitated? Did this happen? I don’t know. Sometimes I get the impression from the scriptures that people only entered arranged marriages or were grossly promiscious, and that our own development of dating and cohabitating has only recently turned into a substitution for marriage without the marital commitment and thus the lack of need to divorce. Or perhaps this did occur, but since marriages were arranged, living as husband and wife without being husband and wife would fall under the word “pornia”. I get this conclusion only because I’ve heard some progressives argue by other passages and the vagueness of the word “pornia” that is was only sex that made you married, not a ceremony. They use this to argue that engaged couples who fornicate aren’t sinning because “they’re already married.” However, if that is the case, than Christ’s teaching is ultimately that whoever you lose your virginity to, provided that person isn’t a prostitute or married to someone else, is your spouse and that you cannot seperate. Honestly, I think that the Church is then being a lot more permissive than that interpretation. For all those who didn’t wait till marriage, can you imagine being stuck with the first person you lost your virginity to?

 

[Rascalking]

It can be tough, and compassion is definitely necessary. I do want to point out though that in a case such as this, the unfairness is the fault the abusive spouse rather than the teaching, and that recourse/justice etc certainly will happen. It just might take until one or both people dies.

May not make it much easier, but worth remembering.

The church can definitely make it easier. In a teaching like that, the unfairness is with one spouse, but church teachings makes it much, much harder for the innocent spouse to be rebuild from the that person hurting the other.

I’m single, never been married, so I don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s just what I’ve seen really irritates me.

 

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers explains it well:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

 

[Frankr409]

I’ve asked this on the ‘Ask an Apologist’ Forum but not received a reply, so thought I’d try here:

The Church teaches that divorce is forbidden. Someone who is divorced in a civil court by their partner is still deemed married by the Church and forbidden to remarry. However, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus quite explicitly allows for divorce in the case of ‘formication’ - and says this on two occasions.

Why does the Church ignore this teaching or, rather, interprets its position in favour of Luke and Mark, rather than Matthew?

We also have the potential for someone in a terrible marriage [spouse beater, alcoholic, adulterous, drug addict… you get the picture] who is then abandoned by this person. The guilty party may go on to have another life remarrying, having children and so on… While the innocent party, loyal to their faith, is condemned to live a life alone and lonely.

Where is the moral justice in this? Where is the Natural Law of the right to happiness? OK, we may never achieve happiness but should we be forbidden to try and achieve it in a loving relationship with the possibility of having children and grandchildren?

I have spent a fair amount of time trying to understand the position on divorce and re-marriage, and finally concluded that Jesus really meant what the Catholic Church teaches whether it seems fair to the average person or not. I converted to the faith 8 years ago.

My former wife had an affair with a man who was employed by the church, and he was also studying to be a Deacon for our parish as well, and if anything felt that I was entitled to a “free pass” when it came time to have the annulment. Guess what ? No Annulment.

Instead of souring me though, about the faith, and the fairness of it all, I decided to accept the wonderful wisdom that Jesus has given about this.

I live my life now like you stated in your post, forbidden to achieve a loving relationship with someone. Except for me now, I am now free to have a loving relationship with my Lord, and I do that because that is the situation I am presented with.

I would not wish the pain and sorrow that I have experienced with anyone else, but I have to say, that in the end, the Lord has given me the capacity to bear this cross, and to give him my love, and that is better than any human love I have ever felt.

Maybe someday the Lord will make it possible for me to once again enjoy romance with someone, but I’m ok if it does not happen. He has a plan for each of us, and this is the plan he has given me, and I’m ok with it!

 

[TheAdvocate]

For those of you who say that “porneia” refers to some kind of incestuous relationship, and thus such a marriage was never valid to begin with, making divorce therefore possible, let me posit this: if the marriage was never valid to begin with, then you can’t divorce. Divorce is not possible unless a marriage is valid first, just like you can’t get sick unless you’re healthy, you can’t turn off a tv unless it’s on, or retract a statement you’ve made unless you’ve made it.

There is no divorce unless there is marriage first. It makes no sense to say that one “divorces” when one is not validly married to begin with. There’s nothing to “divorce.” I read Jimmy Akin’s article. It is not convincing for the reasons I’ve written above.

I recently read in a history of Christianity book that in the early church (I’m talking the first few centuries) Christians who were married were permitted divorce and remarriage, but upon the second marriage, there had to be a penitential service in the ceremony. This is how the Orthodox church does it today. Criticize it if you want to, but this was the practice in the early church, at least in the East. (I loaned the book to a friend, so the exact author and title escape me: but read this commentary of Canon Law: books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1360&lpg=PA1360&dq=divorce+remarriage+in+the+early+church+penitential&source=bl&ots=GI9PRHFv1g&sig=ykUTxNkNAP5JMIeucLE9zmBONU8&hl=en&ei=k1vjTLnaEYe8sAP9l9hm&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=divorce%20remarriage%20in%20the%20early%20church%20penitential&f=false

By the way, in the Orthodox church, the second and third marriage is not sacramental. But it is allowed because it is better to “marry than to burn.”

Do you scoff at the idea of them granting non-sacramental marriages? Well, Catholics do it, too when they grant a “disparity of cult” marriage, such as when a Catholic marries an atheist—not sacramental.

 

[Frankk]

Thank you all for your responses and insights. I take the point about the ‘correct’ translation of porneia - but I think this is something of a red-herring.

There are cases where the original Greek can throw light on an issue . Relating to the Eucharist in John 6 all English translations use the word ‘eat’ to translate three different Greek words. First we have, ‘esthiw’ meaning eat; then ‘phagw’ also meaning eat but, in the Greek, it has the aspect of an action in the past - and finally Jesus saying eat, is translated as ‘trwgw’ which has a more graphic meaning. More on the lines of ‘gnaw’ or ‘chew’ (as of meat or a bone). Faced with this more explicit verb it is easier to see why people were so shocked and began to leave.

I’m not wholly convinced by Jimmy Akin’s argument. He points out what other repsondents say about meanings attributed to porneia (unchaste behaviour before marriage rendering the marriage invalid; adultery as an incorrect interpretation etc…)

However, whatever we translate porneia as it does not detract from the fact that Jesus allows for an exception.

He also says: “Why would Matthew be the only Evangelist to point out the possibility of dissolving such unions? Because he is the only one who mentions that, when Mary was discovered to be with child by the Holy Spirit, Joseph had in mind to divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19). He alone would seem to have a reason to clarify why Joseph’s planned course of action was legitimate, given what Jesus said later regarding marriage.”

But this does not address the issue that he DID include provision for an exception. If Akin is right and an exception is possible here, why not elsewhere? The idea that ‘unchastity’ between the betrothed before the wedding night was possible does not rule out that this would be ‘porneia’ according to Jewish law/custom.

Frank409, I am saddened to hear of your loss but gladdened that you have found a way to happiness. But not every ‘innocent’ has been blessed as you have been and they continue to suffer. [by the way, were you and your former wife Catholics when you were married? I have heard of marriages being annulled when not performed according to the Roman Rite - although this is anecdotal]

bookcat, you argue that remarriage is not possible and that this is “Not injustice…truth”.
Truth says nothing about justice or injustice. Something can be true and unjust.

 

[Bookcat]

bookcat, you argue that remarriage is not possible and that this is “Not injustice…truth”.
Truth says nothing about justice or injustice. Something can be true and unjust.

Sure it does. But on both sides. If a husband has given himself to his wife and a wife has given herself to him… united in marriage before God …such is the “truth” and “justice”.

The fact that one leaves the other and “attempts” to marry another (which they can not do) is an “injustice” yes.

But the fact that both parties are in “truth” united to each other until death is not an injustice.

One can not ignore the truth…and say that the other can remarry …for that would be against truth and justice (dispite the fact that the other sinned against both too).

Jimmy’s explainination is very good.

One also needs to read the Scriptures as a whole…and within the Church.

Oh…and of course the earliest Christians also understood it this way…two Christians were not to “divorce and remarry”

 

[Rence]

I’ve asked this on the ‘Ask an Apologist’ Forum but not received a reply, so thought I’d try here:

The Church teaches that divorce is forbidden. Someone who is divorced in a civil court by their partner is still deemed married by the Church and forbidden to remarry. However, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus quite explicitly allows for divorce in the case of ‘formication’ - and says this on two occasions.

Why does the Church ignore this teaching or, rather, interprets its position in favour of Luke and Mark, rather than Matthew?

We also have the potential for someone in a terrible marriage [spouse beater, alcoholic, adulterous, drug addict… you get the picture] who is then abandoned by this person. The guilty party may go on to have another life remarrying, having children and so on… While the innocent party, loyal to their faith, is condemned to live a life alone and lonely.

Where is the moral justice in this? Where is the Natural Law of the right to happiness? OK, we may never achieve happiness but should we be forbidden to try and achieve it in a loving relationship with the possibility of having children and grandchildren?

I can see how you can be upset and how you can see the injustice in the Church’s rules about marriage and divorce, and life after divorce. But something tells me that your thoughts regarding these matters are coming from those around you, rather than what the Church really teachings. It’s difficult sometimes to separate what the Church really teachings, from what ultra-conservative, or even just practicing Catholics who are ignorant of CCC and canon are telling you. It’s really not their fault, they mean well.

The truth is, the Church does intervene for those who are not in a valid marriage. The person who has been wronged by their spouse needs to petition their diocese (with the help of their priest) for an annullment, answering the questions and giving as much detail as possible so that they paint a clear picture. No one here on this forum, or IRL, besides those involved in the annullment process really have any say in the matter either way. And really can’t answer specific questions about specific cases. Those involved in the annullment process dig deep and get many details to help them make their decision.

Once an annullment is granted, that marriage is no longer recognized as being valid as it has been annulled. Many times, there are grounds for annulments, and these marriages are annulled and both parties go their separate ways. In this way, the wronged party definitely has a chance at future happiness. Don’t let anyone tell you that despite an annullment that the marriage is still valid, and that both spouses are bound to it because that simply isn’t true: once annulled, the Church considers that marriage never happened, and both spouses are considered unmarried and single.

If you know someone who is suffering because they are in an abusive caustic marriage, encourage them to appeal to the Church for an annulment, relentlessly pray, and get the guidance of their priest.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Oh…and of course the earliest Christians also understood it this way…two Christians were not to “divorce and remarry”

Sure they did. See my post above.

And let’s not forget. It is impossible to “divorce” unless you are already validly married. (Again, see above post of mine).

 

[Frankk]

The fact that one leaves the other and “attempts” to marry another (which they can not do) is an “injustice” yes.

Of course, it is possible to remarry. Maybe not in the Church’s view but certainly in the view of society. Civil marriages are legally valid. On the same lines someone may convert to another religion and remarry. Similarly, someone could choose to live with someone in a ‘marital relationship’ without getting married at all. The Catholic church may not see such marriages/relationships as valid but they take place nevertheless.

And, clearly, the ‘guilty’ party accrues a benefit here: the potential for a happy life with children/grandchildren etc. The innocent party is derived of this possibillity.

I can see why you think that Akin’s argument is very good - but this is only an opinion. I find it unconvincing or, at least, incomplete - which is also an opinion.
Neither position could be proposed as ‘truth’.

Rence:

The truth is, the Church does intervene for those who are not in a valid marriage.

Rence I agree with you on this point. There can be many reasons a marriage may be annulled (and the Church seems more willing to invoke them these days).

However, marriage between two Catholics according to the Roman Rite cannot be annulled however awful the marriage may be for one of the couple - and this would include, as an extreme example, attempted murder of a spouse where the guilty party is jailed for life without the possibility for parole.

 

[Rence]

Rence I agree with you on this point. There can be many reasons a marriage may be annulled (and the Church seems more willing to invoke them these days).

However, marriage between two Catholics according to the Roman Rite cannot be annulled however awful the marriage may be for one of the couple - and this would include, as an extreme example, attempted murder of a spouse where the guilty party is jailed for life without the possibility for parole.

You’re right: a marriage cannot be annulled only because it is an “awful marriage”, for either one, or for both parties . There has to be a reason why the marriage was not a marriage to begin with in order for it to be annulled. The Church CAN annull a marriage between two Catholics according to the Roman Rite, if it is found that the marriage is not valid. Look at the conditions in order for a marriage to be valid. For example, among those reasons for a marriage to be valid is full consent on the part of both parties. You can’t have full consent if one of the spouses is deceiving the other. You cannot have full consent if there is no full disclosure on both sides. Those are just examples, of course.

However, something tells me that in a marriage where a criminal is doing time for attempted murder of the other spouse, there would be at least one reason why the diocese might find the marriage wasn’t valid to begin with…

 

[Bookcat]

Of course, it is possible to remarry. Maybe not in the Church’s view but certainly in the view of society. Civil marriages are legally valid. On the same lines someone may convert to another religion and remarry. Similarly, someone could choose to live with someone in a ‘marital relationship’ without getting married at all. The Catholic church may not see such marriages/relationships as valid but they take place nevertheless.

What one does “in appearance” is not necessarily done “in truth” in* reality.*

I can “marry” my sister all I want. But it is never in reality a “marriage”.

A person can “appear” to marry someone when they are already validly married to someone else…but no matter how big a “ceremony” they have it is simply not *possible *for them to marry. Sort of like I can claim to be King of England…but even if I have a real big crowning ceremony…does not make it so.

In truth…in reality…before God and the nature of marriage they are not married.

And, clearly, the ‘guilty’ party accrues a benefit here: the potential for a happy life with children/grandchildren etc. The innocent party is derived of this possibillity.

I life living contrary to God and his laws…is not a happy life.

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus is very firm on not getting divorced and “remarrying”…such IS adultery.

(the case of the invalid marriage …is the case of a non marriage)

As has been the Church from the beginning…we can not do contrary to our Masters teaching.

 

[TheAdvocate]

For those of you who say that “porneia” refers to some kind of incestuous relationship, and thus such a marriage was never valid to begin with, making divorce therefore possible, let me posit this: if the marriage was never valid to begin with, then you can’t divorce. Divorce is not possible unless a marriage is valid first, just like you can’t get sick unless you’re healthy, you can’t turn off a tv unless it’s on, or retract a statement you’ve made unless you’ve made it.

There is no divorce unless there is marriage first. It makes no sense to say that one “divorces” when one is not validly married to begin with. There’s nothing to “divorce.” I read Jimmy Akin’s article. It is not convincing for the reasons I’ve written above.

I recently read in a history of Christianity book that in the early church (I’m talking the first few centuries) Christians who were married were permitted divorce and remarriage, but upon the second marriage, there had to be a penitential service in the ceremony. This is how the Orthodox church does it today. Criticize it if you want to, but this was the practice in the early church, at least in the East. (I loaned the book to a friend, so the exact author and title escape me: but read this commentary of Canon Law: books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1360&lpg=PA1360&dq=divorce+remarriage+in+the+early+church+penitential&source=bl&ots=GI9PRHFv1g&sig=ykUTxNkNAP5JMIeucLE9zmBONU8&hl=en&ei=k1vjTLnaEYe8sAP9l9hm&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=divorce%20remarriage%20in%20the%20early%20church%20penitential&f=false

By the way, in the Orthodox church, the second and third marriage is not sacramental. But it is allowed because it is better to “marry than to burn.”

Do you scoff at the idea of them granting non-sacramental marriages? Well, Catholics do it, too when they grant a “disparity of cult” marriage, such as when a Catholic marries an atheist—not sacramental.

I’m surprised no one “took me on” on my previous post (above). Main point: when Jesus allows for an exception for divorce and remarriage, it must mean that the marriage he was making an exception for was valid because one cannot divorce unless one is married first Otherwise there would be nothing to divorce. Second point: in the early Church, at least in the East, divorce and remarriage was permitted in some cases.