Church teaching on Divorce

[Bookcat]

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.

Jesus does not allow for an exception for divorce and remarriage.

Just like today someone can be called married by the society and so we even at times speak colloquially of them “being married”…where as in reality…before God they are not…for example a homosexual “marriage” in some States…I can say “vote no on Gay marriage” but this does not mean that I accept that “gay marriage” is ever real marriage in the Eyes of God and thus reality…

The early Church did not permit divorce and remarriage. But was very strongly against it.

(What some *may *have done not in full communion with the Catholic Church …is what they did in later centuries…not what the Church teaches or allows…I do not say they did…but if they did…it was not the Catholic Church )

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

 

[TheAdvocate]

catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

This still does not address the fact that in the early Church in the East second marriages were permitted after divorce, but only following a penitential service. I provided proof of it in my link above from the Latin code of canon law.

And again…it is impossible to divorce someone who is not legitimately sacramentally married to begin with. So to suggest that “porneia” refers to unchastity rending a marriage invalid makes no sense if you say one can be divorced from it. You can’t be divorced from a marriage that never was!

 

[Bookcat]

This still does not address the fact that in the early Church in the East second marriages were permitted after divorce, but only following a penitential service. I provided proof of it in my link above from the Latin code of canon law.

And again…it is impossible to divorce someone who is not legitimately sacramentally married to begin with. So to suggest that “porneia” refers to unchastity rending a marriage invalid makes no sense if you say one can be divorced from it. You can’t be divorced from a marriage that never was!

Such is not from the Code of Canon Law.

And again if some permitted it (prob much later)…it was not permitted by the Catholic Church. The Early Church was adamant that such is not permitted.

No it is not impossible to “legally” divorce someone who is in a sacramental marriage… (but of course the original audience were not in sacramental marriages…they were in natural marriages…) and it is possible to get a legal “divorce” from an invalid marriage…say with your 1st cousin or your sister…it is “called” a marriage and a act of society called a divorce happens…but yes of course it was not a “real marriage” to begin with. Same can apply here with this text.

Even today if one is in an “invalid marriage” in reality. One still needs a civil divorce from that “marriage” in order to get married in our society. We still speak that way coloqually as well.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Such is not from the Code of Canon Law.

And again if some permitted it (prob much later)…it was not permitted by the Catholic Church. The Early Church was adamant that such is not permitted.

No it is not impossible to “legally” divorce someone who is in a sacramental marriage… (but of course the original audience were not in sacramental marriages…they were in natural marriages…) and it is possible to get a legal “divorce” from an invalid marriage…say with your 1st cousin or your sister…it is “called” a marriage and a act of society called a divorce happens…but yes of course it was not a “real marriage” to begin with. Same can apply here with this text.

Even today if one is in an “invalid marriage” in reality. One still needs a civil divorce from that “marriage” in order to get married in our society. We still speak that way coloqually as well.

It does not seem like you read the link I provided in full, so here is the text from The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809105020/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290122085&sr=8-2):

“At least by the time of Cyprian in the mid-third century, adultery was ranked among the deadly sins to be submitted to the Church’s penitential discipline. Since the gospels equate remarriage after divorce with adultery, the question of the ecclesial status of Christians who had divorced and remarried in accord with Roman law could not avoided. The extant sources do not clearly indicate how the Church dealt with divorced Christians during the first four centuries, and it may be that the practice differed from church to church. However, scattered ecclesiastical texts and new divorce legislation of the Christian emperors suggest that, in many places at least, the practice was to excommunicate or bar from the eucharistic table those who remarried after a divorce and to subject them to a period of penance which could last several years. At the end of this period, they were reconciled to the Church but not necessarily required to separate.

This somewhat lenient practice of concession and toleration continued in the East. However, it was displaced in the West during the fourth and early fifth centuries by a more rigorist practice which was crystallized in the writings of Jerome and especially Augustine. Augustine’s meditation on the on the New Testament led him to the conclusion that, if remarriage after divorce constituted adultery, then some residue of marriage (quiddam coniugale) must survive the *de facto *the *de iure *disintegration of the social fact of the marriage. This “marital something” was “the bond” (vinculum) whose perdurance even after divorce precluded the establishment of another marriage. In this way, Augustine quietly moved the prohibition of divorce beyond the realm of morality into the realm of ontology: remarriage after divorce was not only forbidden but impossible as long as the original spouse was alive."

Notice that the commentary writes about the early church. Now, I respect the annulment system, but I don’t believe it’s only just way of dealing with broken marriages. The East also has a plausible approach. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe the issue of divorce and remarriage is going to be a big factor in the reunification between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

As far as your distinction between natural marriage and sacramental marriage, in Jesus’ day there was no separation between Church and State, certainly not in terms of marriage–he is talking about sacramental marriage in Matthew’s gospel. Do you really think he was talking about natural marriage? Nope. Everyone quotes Jesus’ words in order to teach about the sacramentality of marriage!

 

[Bookcat]

It does not seem like you read the link I provided in full, so here is the text from The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809105020/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290122085&sr=8-2):

Such is a “book” not Canon Law. The work of a particular author(s)…here is good evidence that the early Church did not permit remarriage after divorce (see link above) and if it is the case that in some places they followed a different practice does not make it the practice of the Catholic Church ((and there is a real question as to what was really meant!)

I would not too that they may have been permitted to “remain together” living “as brother and sister” as one can even find today. This is not a recognition of the validity of the Marriage…but of permitting them to raise their children (already conceived) together…

Here is (in small print there…(see into to ccc on what that means) in the Catechism:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.159

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#V

/QUOTE]

 

[Bookcat]

As far as your distinction between natural marriage and sacramental marriage, in Jesus’ day there was no separation between Church and State, certainly not in terms of marriage–he is talking about sacramental marriage in Matthew’s gospel. Do you really think he was talking about natural marriage? Nope. Everyone quotes Jesus’ words in order to teach about the sacramentality of marriage!

Looking forward to what he would himself institute --Yes it can be said he includes sacramental marriage (of course).

Looking at the audience he was addressing --no. For Sacramental Marriage did not yet exist in practice. No two Baptized Christians =no sacrament.

Jewish marriage was not sacramental.

 

[Frankk]

Bookcat

You are right that marriage to your sister isn’t a marriage in reality.

It isn’t even a marriage in law - you CANNOT marry your sister. You may go through a ceremony but this is illegal and no marriage takes place.

‘Living a life contrary to God and his laws…is not a happy life’ is an interesting theological statement. However, I would say it is nonsense to suggest that many atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are not living happy lives.

Many have good jobs, good friends, a loving spouse and children, interesting hobbies, enjoy nice holidays, have decent homes in good neighbourhoods and so on. It would be illogical to say that they do not have happy lives.

 

[Frankk]

Perhaps not, but it was a marriage according to God’s laws. Jewish marriages were always sacramental in the sense that marriage was instituted by God and he recognized Jewish marriages as valid.

If he did not there would have been no need for the 6th Commandment.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat

You are right that marriage to your sister isn’t a marriage in reality.

It isn’t even a marriage in law - you CANNOT marry your sister. You may go through a ceremony but this is illegal and no marriage takes place.

You can change it to “gay marriage” in some states…where it is legal…same thing

And trying to Marry someone when one is already married is also not a reality. God does not join them in marriage. They are already married to another…

‘Living a life contrary to God and his laws…is not a happy life’ is an interesting theological statement. However, I would say it is nonsense to suggest that many atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are not living happy lives.

certain “happiness” yes…of course…but the question is it true happiness…(I am not judging any of them…and yes God can “work” in ways etc where we do not see…) my point was a person who is living in mortal sin is not really happy…a person who knowing goes against God in this…and sins also have their own “unhappiness” that come with them here… and “actually living” is living well…and thus makes for a good life…and true lasting happiness

 

[Bookcat]

Perhaps not, but it was a marriage according to God’s laws. Jewish marriages were always sacramental in the sense that marriage was instituted by God and he recognized Jewish marriages as valid.

If he did not there would have been no need for the 6th Commandment.

Nope. Not sacramental. Only the two Baptized persons enter into a sacramental marriage…by the very nature of it. Sacraments are only Christian.

Yes Marriage is instituted by God. Not all “Jewish marriages” were according to God’s Law…nor recognized as valid.

And Jesus points the Jews who where listening to him…to the fact that if one marries after divorce …one commits adultery.

 

[Bookcat]

For interested readers:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0209frs.asp

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

 

[Frankk]

Bookcat,

You said, 'God does not join them in marriage". I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you not remember that part of the wedding ceremony where the celebrant says, “What God has joined together…”?

Your definition of ‘true happiness’ would not be recognized by many millions of the world’s population who are not religious - or, even, by many of those who are.

Happiness in this life may be different from happiness in the hereafter - but there are still very many, very happy people in the world. To suggest that this is not ‘true’ happiness means nothing to them.

Your argument leads to a proposition that the severely beaten wife of a drug-addicted, alcoholic husband shouldn’t feel unhappy because her marriage means she has ‘true’ happiness in God’s eyes.

 

[Frankk]

Nope. Not sacramental. Only the two Baptized persons enter into a sacramental marriage…by the very nature of it. Sacraments are only Christian.

You’ve missed the bit where I said, “in the sense that”.

Yes Marriage is instituted by God. Not all “Jewish marriages” were according to God’s Law…nor recognized as valid.

This is an interesting point. From Abraham’s time to the time of Christ [even, until today] when were Jewish marriages not according to God’s law? If there was some other arrangement in ancient times then it wasn’t a marriage.

The original question remains unanswered. Matthew tells us Jesus said divorce was forbidden except for fornication/unchastity [or whatever we want to translate porneia as].

We cannot just airbrush this out of the Gospel or hope that it will go unnoticed. Mt quite clearly points to an exception.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

You said, 'God does not join them in marriage". I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you not remember that part of the wedding ceremony where the celebrant says, “What God has joined together…”?

No matter what some person here on earth says…it the person is already married to someone else or for some other reason this “attempted marriage” will be invalid GOD DOES NOT JOIN THEM TOGETHER they are attemping a fiction. Perhaps a fiction in “good conscience” but a fiction non the same

Your definition of ‘true happiness’ would not be recognized by many millions of the world’s population who are not religious - or, even, by many of those who are.

Reality is reality. Even if someone does not recognize it.

Your argument leads to a proposition that the severely beaten wife of a drug-addicted, alcoholic husband shouldn’t feel unhappy because her marriage means she has ‘true’ happiness in God’s eyes.

They may have never have really been married…so this is why the Church will look into it and see if it was valid…

.and no it does not mean such…one can be happy in a real way in so many difficult situations…of course the person may need to separate so as to get away from such abuse! even if the marriage was valid…

 

[Bookcat]

The original question remains unanswered. Matthew tells us Jesus said divorce was forbidden except for fornication/unchastity [or whatever we want to translate porneia as].

We cannot just airbrush this out of the Gospel or hope that it will go unnoticed. Mt quite clearly points to an exception.

Actually this question HAS been answered. The “exception” has been explained. See Jimmy Akin. (and Acts’ use of the same understanding)

Matthew was written to Jewish Christians. They understood what was meant here.

The other Gospels such as Luke and Mark have no need to note this Jewish exception. For they were not written per se to the Jews…and the Gentiles would not understand it.

We do not take single verses out of context of the whole or out of context of Tradition and the Church and seek to create a different singular understanding.

Remember it is the Church which who is given the task of authentically interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. This is how it is understood…that is “as not in anyway meaning” that one can “divorce and remarry” if ones spouse would commit adultery etc. Such a case is closed.

Besides if such was so …the such would mean that marriage is not a lasting union as God says…That one could just “undo” marriage by committing adultey. Such would defeat the whole purpose of marriage.

“what God has united let no man divide”!

“We should never read Scripture alone because we meet too many closed doors and could easily slip into error. The Bible has been written by the People of God and for the People of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God do we truly enter into the “we”, into the nucleus of the truth that God himself wants to tell us.”

"For him (He is giving an Audience of St. Jerome), an authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmonious accord with the faith of the Catholic Church. It is not a question of an exegesis imposed on this Book from without; the Book is really the voice of the pilgrim People of God and only in the faith of this People are we “correctly attuned” to understand Sacred Scripture. Therefore, Jerome admonishes: “Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you can preach according to right doctrine and refute those who contradict it” (Ep. 52, 7). In particular, given that Jesus Christ founded his Church on Peter, every Christian, he concludes, must be in communion “with St Peter’s See. I know that on this rock the Church is built” (Ep. 15, 2). Consequently, without equivocation, he declared: “I am with whoever is united to the teaching of St Peter” (Ep. 16).

Pope Benedict XVI vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071114_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

The unity and indissolubility of marriage

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: "so they are no longer two, but one flesh."151 They "are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving."152 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."153 Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.154

The fidelity of conjugal love

1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement “until further notice.” The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."155

1647 The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning.

1648 It can seem difficult, even impossible, to bind oneself for life to another human being. This makes it all the more important to proclaim the Good News that God loves us with a definitive and irrevocable love, that married couples share in this love, that it supports and sustains them, and that by their own faithfulness they can be witnesses to God’s faithful love. Spouses who with God’s grace give this witness, often in very difficult conditions, deserve the gratitude and support of the ecclesial community.156

(Below here is the “small print” see link and meaning in beginning of CCC)

1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.157

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.159

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV

 

[TheAdvocate]

Looking forward to what he would himself institute --Yes it can be said he includes sacramental marriage (of course).

Looking at the audience he was addressing --no. For Sacramental Marriage did not yet exist in practice. No two Baptized Christians =no sacrament.

Jewish marriage was not sacramental.

Oh, I see. So when the Master was talking about the prohibition on divorce and remarriage, he was talking about sacramental marriage. But when he was talking about the exception, he was talking about natural marriage.

Uh-huh.

Not convincing.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Compassion is not often properly understood. And secularists use the compassion argument against Catholics all the time. Finally, the biggest problem: marriage is no longer properly understood by too many people, including Catholics.

Here is an explanation of Annulments:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea2.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bookcat]

Oh, I see. So when the Master was talking about the prohibition on divorce and remarriage, he was talking about sacramental marriage. But when he was talking about the exception, he was talking about natural marriage.

Uh-huh.

Not convincing.

Jewish marriage…and actually any marriage involving a non baptized person is by nature non sacramental.

Valid Marriage between two baptized persons is by nature sacramental.

The “exception” Jesus is referring too…in the “Gospel directed towards the Jewish Christian audience as first audience” would be understood by his Jewish audience…for more…read Jimmy Akin