Communion for divorced and remarried? Africa's bishops have other concerns, cardinal says [CNA]

[Rubia]

Did you know that Jesus didn’t make any specific concessions for annulment either? The provision of defect of form is specifically related to Catholic rules for marriage. The rules and the concessions to the rules are all discerned Catholic teaching. The reason that we give those rules and concessions our faith and obedience is because we trust in the special powers of the Church through Apostolic succession to guide us in the richness of the scripture. We are not sola scriptura believers saying ‘well Jesus never specifically said it, so I reject it’.

Yeah sure Several things:

1. What exactly do you think “except for unlawfulness” means in Jesus’ words? He already taught that the law doesn’t bind unlawful marriages. That is what the church calls invalid marriages.
2. You are misrepresenting the church’s teaching on annulment as a “concession” from Jesus’ teaching. That is just wrong wrong wrong! How about you consult your church on this,seeing as you have “the true catholic spirit”?

This is what your church teaches:

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e.,** that the marriage never existed**.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

Are you implying that the church is lying about what an annulment is? A recognition of a FACT already there that there is no marriage to speak of? Instead, it is a “concession” from Christ’s teaching? Ha! Taken right out of the anti-catholic apologetics manual, that. Au contraire, your catechism:

1639 **The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.**143 From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society."144 The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love."145

1640 **Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. **This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth IRREVOCABLE, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

1. Sola Scriptura? Straw man! Apparently you imagine the church has been sola scriptura for 2000 years and has only in 2014 with the Kasper group discovered Tradition? Apparently also, not being sola scriptura means you get to invent new truths 2,000 years later because of “special powers.” You are free to look at 2,000 years of magisterium and find me the tradition that says what you are claiming.
2. The church has not taught annullment “because she has special powers” beyond teaching the same truth she received from the apostles. The church taught annullment because it is part of that deposit of faith. Jesus already taught that there were apparent marriages that fell outside his teaching.All the church has done from tradition in annulments is given the reasoning for WHY: the marriage is only apparent, not real. Apparently you think the church has “special powers” to invent things that dont belong to the faith she has received.Again, read your catechism:

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. **The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.**146

Who are you to claim for the church powers that SHE denies having???

 

[Rubia]

By your reasoning, annulments are heretical as well. If you don’t believe in the Churchs powers to discern our rules through the workings of the Magisterium, then are you sure you have the true Catholic spirit?

How about… I’ll take a lecture from you when you give me a rebuke based on Catholicism, not your own inventions. Special powers to reverse truth?..ha!

To the contrary, this is your own reasoning, not mine, thank you very much. And with due respect it is naught but twisting and mis-characterization of the church’s current teaching on annulments to excuse support for open contradictions to the faith. I in fact DO believe in the church’s powers.Those she has, not the ones conveniently assigned to her by supporters of strange new positions based on their desire for her to change the truth for them and friends, no. But in those powers she was given by our Lord Jesus Christ and taught for 2,000 years, absolutely!! Preserve, teach, defend the deposit she has received, not invent it out of whole clothe.

Scripture does NOT contradict Tradition and Tradition does NOT contradict scripture. THAT is catholic faith, not this idea that the church has special power to make up stuff 2,000 years later. I do hope that if someone proposes to you that God is not a Trinity, or Jesus not Divine, after all, because this is 2015 andnot “out-dated” 300AD, and a synod is called to discuss it, you will not go around claiming that the church has “special powers” to decide that Arianism was right after all, and Nestorianism the true Gospel.

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

Did you know that the church’s teaching on marriage has been taught by a binding ecumenical council(Trent) ratified by the Pope? What counts as dogma, do you think?

The whole argument is a total straw man. We believe in tradition AND scripture AND the church’s teaching authority, not either/or. Feel free to find me an example of ONE thing where either the Tradition or the church’s teaching authority has contradicted the scripture like you insinuate can be done through “special powers”. Indeed, what is your own basis for contradicting your church? Are you in possession of the “true catholic spirit” by going around openly claiming something that the Catholic Church categorically denies?

 

[graciew]

No, but you can’t have the kids converted with them thinking polygamy is okay too. The children should be the main concern, I would think. And I think the Pope would want that too.

Exactly. 100% agreement

 

[LongingSoul]

Yeah sure Several things:

1. What exactly do you think “except for unlawfulness” means in Jesus’ words? He already taught that the law doesn’t bind unlawful marriages. That is what the church calls invalid marriages.
2. You are misrepresenting the church’s teaching on annulment as a “concession” from Jesus’ teaching. That is just wrong wrong wrong! How about you consult your church on this,seeing as you have “the true catholic spirit”?

The verse from Matthew 5:32 reads “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (fornication, sexual immorality), causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

That is not addressing the validity of the the marriage from the start.

 

[Brendan]

The African bishops have to deal with their own problems in marriage, such as polygamy. How exactly do you deal with a family wishing to convert to Christianity where the husband has multiple wives? Do you tell him to throw his wives out? That he can only have one and has to choose and live with the others like brother and sister. .

I have first hand experience, as I am a regular visitor to Tanzania, doing mission work there. I stay with the local bishop, in his house. His diocese has quite a large population that still holds to the native, tribal religions.

And yes, the solution offered is to retain the first wife, and to live with the others as sisters.

And no, that is not a punishment. The family gets the Graces of Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. That is hardly a punishment.

Now I did have a conversation with the bishop as to why there are so many who still hold to the tribal religions, especially in the 21st Century.

He somewhat laughed, and noted the reason was practicality. They don’t desire to convert to Islam, as that would mean no beer (and bacon). They don’t want to convert to Christianity, as that would mean that they can only have one wife ( and this is true even for men who are married to just one woman. They want the OPTION of having multiple wives.

But conversions are still happening, and at a great rate. Africa is on fire for the Faith.

And one more point. This bishop, at least, is VERY much concerned with the issue of divorce and remarriage. It would hamper conversions, as it would be difficult to preach on the sanctity and permanence of monogamous marriage. Those desiring conversions would point towards the Americans and the Europeans and wonder why they cannot have more than one wife, but the Wazungu (white folks) can.

 

[Brendan]

The verse from Matthew 5:32 reads “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (fornication, sexual immorality), causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

That is not addressing the validity of the the marriage from the start.

Note that it does not permit remarriage. Only a divorce, that one spouse may separate from the other.

In fact, it specifically forbids marrying a divorced woman. One who does so commits adultery

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I have first hand experience, as I am a regular visitor to Tanzania, doing mission work there. I stay with the local bishop, in his house. His diocese has quite a large population that still holds to the native, tribal religions.

And yes, the solution offered is to retain the first wife, and to live with the others as sisters.

And no, that is not a punishment. The family gets the Graces of Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. That is hardly a punishment.

Now I did have a conversation with the bishop as to why there are so many who still hold to the tribal religions, especially in the 21st Century.

He somewhat laughed, and noted the reason was practicality. They don’t desire to convert to Islam, as that would mean no beer (and bacon). They don’t want to convert to Christianity, as that would mean that they can only have one wife ( and this is true even for men who are married to just one woman. They want the OPTION of having multiple wives.

But conversions are still happening, and at a great rate. Africa is on fire for the Faith.

And one more point. This bishop, at least, is VERY much concerned with the issue of divorce and remarriage. It would hamper conversions, as it would be difficult to preach on the sanctity and permanence of monogamous marriage. Those desiring conversions would point towards the Americans and the Europeans and wonder why they cannot have more than one wife, but the Wazungu (white folks) can.

It is a punishment for the second, third, etc. wives who spend the rest of their lives without physical intimacy through no fault of their own. But their former husband gets to have as much sex as he wants with his first wife. Exactly how is that fair to wives two and three? It seems like a rule that benefits the patriarchy.

 

[LongingSoul]

Note that it does not permit remarriage. Only a divorce, that one spouse may separate from the other.

In fact, it specifically forbids marrying a divorced woman. One who does so commits adultery

The previous poster had claimed that this verse was the Catholic basis for annulment but I was showing that it wasn’t. The annulment process is a particular application of canon law and a reflection of the external limitations of Church law.

 

[Brendan]

It is a punishment for the second, third, etc. wives who spend the rest of their lives without physical intimacy through no fault of their own. But their former husband gets to have as much sex as he wants with his first wife. Exactly how is that fair to wives two and three? It seems like a rule that benefits the patriarchy.

Which is more important? The Grace of Baptism, along with Christ Present in the Eucharist. Or sex.

The fact that the Church in Africa is doing such a great job of showing them that Christ in their lives is more important than anything speaks volumes on the effectiveness of Church there and the power of the Holy Spirit operating in Africa.



And actually, the husband remains under obligation to feed, cloth and house them, as if they are his sisters.

But like sisters, those women are free to marry in the Church, as they never were married to begin with. So they are free to seek other spouses, or remain in their current family. It actually opens more choices for them.

And what would be the alternative? To condone a lie, there is no such thing as a second wife while the first one is still living.

Or should we assume Christ lied to us when he told us that?

Or should the Church forget Her evangelical traditions, and not attempt to convert? But then again, that would run afoul of the Great Commission. We would again have to deny the very words of Christ.

Sorry Longing, the Church has always treated polygamy in this manner, and it has been successful in doing so throughout the History of the Church. And rightly so, for it is a process that works along with the Holy Spirit, the One True Converter of hearts. Any other means acts in opposition to the Spirit, and the Church simply cannot do that.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Which is more important? The Grace of Baptism, along with Christ Present in the Eucharist. Or sex.

The fact that the Church in Africa is doing such a great job of showing them that Christ in their lives is more important than anything speaks volumes on the effectiveness of Church there and the power of the Holy Spirit operating in Africa.



And actually, the husband remains under obligation to feed, cloth and house them, as if they are his sisters…

So the husband gets both continued sex and the grace of Baptism and the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Isn’t it great to be him? But hey, the husband is under obligation to treat his other wives like he would his servants as that is essentially what they become. Might as well pay them a living wage for their service rather than keeping them bound as essentially indentured servants.

But like sisters, those women are free to marry in the Church, as they never were married to begin with. So they are free to seek other spouses, or remain in their current family. It actually opens more choices for them.

For someone who has actually been to Africa, you are shockingly naive about the situation for women over there. Do you really think that a man in a patriarchal culture is going to marry someone else’s “used goods” who may be old (i.e. in her twenties)? The men can probably find a teenaged virgins to marry. So no, these women don’t have a choice.

 

[Brendan]

So the husband gets both continued sex and the grace of Baptism and the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Isn’t it great to be him? But hey, the husband is under obligation to treat his other wives like he would his servants as that is essentially what they become. Might as well pay them a living wage for their service rather than keeping them bound as essentially indentured servants.

No he is to treat them as family.

For someone who has actually been to Africa, you are shockingly naive about the situation for women over there. Do you really think that a man in a patriarchal culture is going to marry someone else’s “used goods” who may be old (i.e. in her twenties)? The men can probably find a teenaged virgins to marry. So no, these women don’t have a choice.

How often have you been there? How many of these women have you ever even met?

Yes, they DO have marriage prospects, as these ARE the younger women. I personally know several who are now married to Catholic men.

One of them teaches in the first school that I did computer work in. She teaches Chemistry and Physics. And yes, her first ‘husband’ paid for her education. After all, he is Christian now, and that is what Christians do for their family.

What made you think that her life would be worse after Holy Spirit entered their family? Do you doubt the Spirit that much?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

No he is to treat them as family.

Or as his hired help? Which is how women are treated anyways.

How often have you been there? How many of these women have you ever even met?

Yes, they DO have marriage prospects, as these ARE the younger women. I personally know several who are now married to Catholic men.

One of them teaches in the first school that I did computer work in. She teaches Chemistry and Physics. And yes, her first ‘husband’ paid for her education. After all, he is Christian now, and that is what Christians do for their family.

What made you think that her life would be worse after Holy Spirit entered their family? Do you doubt the Spirit that much?

So you really think that a non-virgin in a patriarchal society has the same marriage prospects as a teenaged virgin? And I don’t think that you are meeting many downtrodden African women if your main subjects have science degrees. I’m talking about the large majority of people… The actual populace of the countries where people might be lucky to learn to read; let alone get college degrees in science. Seriously, don’t make me laugh about this.

And I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit suddenly makes people Christian. There are a whole host of reasons why people become Christian that are cynical and selfish. And I know many devout Catholic families who are also some of the ugliest people I’ve ever met; this includes my father’s immediate family. So please stop with this ridiculousness about the Holy Spirit.

 

[Brendan]

Or as his hired help? Which is how women are treated anyways.

No, they are family and are treated as such

So you really think that a non-virgin in a patriarchal society has the same marriage prospects as a teenaged virgin? And I don’t think that you are meeting many downtrodden African women if your main subjects have science degrees. .

Actually, that is where I do most of my work. I have been setting up computer labs in the diocese so that women can gain general computer skills and get gainful employment.

It was when the bishop doing fundraising in the US back in 2008 for exactly that purpose that got me involved.

Since I work in IT, my pastor set up a meeting when the bishop was at our parish. We planned out the equipment that was needed, I ran some fundraising at my parish, then went over to install it. I’ve been over 1-2 times a year, each year since. Setting up more of these in the main villages in the diocese. Plus one in the main town that serves the secondary school in the town ( 2 Catholic, 1 public). It doubles as an internet ‘cafe’ for the town after school lets out.

And yes, they are effective. And yes, Adila (that is her name btw) is now a science teacher. She was not even a high school graduate where she was ‘married’ at 16. She grew up, like most, in a mud hut in a small village. And yes, her former husband paid for her education after his conversion. As noted he is a Christian now, and that is what Christians do.

Again, why do you doubt the Holy Spirit? Do you think that the Baptism of the converted is without a positive effect, that it does not change hearts? Do you expect their lives to be better remaining as pagans?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

No, they are family and are treated as such

Actually, that is where I do most of my work. I have been setting up computer labs in the diocese so that women can gain general computer skills and get gainful employment.

It was when the bishop doing fundraising in the US back in 2008 for exactly that purpose that got me involved.

Since I work in IT, my pastor set up a meeting when the bishop was at our parish. We planned out the equipment that was needed, I ran some fundraising at my parish, then went over to install it. I’ve been over 1-2 times a year, each year since. Setting up more of these in the main villages in the diocese. Plus one in the main town that serves the secondary school in the town ( 2 Catholic, 1 public). It doubles as an internet ‘cafe’ for the town after school lets out.

And yes, they are effective. And yes, Adila (that is her name btw) is now a science teacher. She was not even a high school graduate where she was ‘married’ at 16. She grew up, like most, in a mud hut in a small village. And yes, her former husband paid for her education after his conversion. As noted he is a Christian now, and that is what Christians do.

Again, why do you doubt the Holy Spirit? Do you think that the Baptism of the converted is without a positive effect, that it does not change hearts? Do you expect their lives to be better remaining as pagans?

Wow… One woman in a culture that degrades women is a science teacher. And that totally means that all non-virgins in multiple marriages thrown out of their homes when their husbands want to convert to Christianity will marry again. In a patriarchal society where women are treated like trash on a regular basis.

And I live in the real world, not a fantasy land. I assume that you think that the “Holy Spirit” also converts wife beaters into model husbands and would suggest that rather than divorcing women should pray and reconcile with their husbands. (Although most abusive husbands are sociopaths who go back to their abusive behavior.)

 

[Rubia]

The verse from Matthew 5:32 reads “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (fornication, sexual immorality), causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

That is not addressing the validity of the the marriage from the start.

False yet again.

From Catholic answers:

Full Question
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”?

Answer
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 Matthew 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.
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff
Q&A Newsletter
Enter your email to receive free weekly quick questions: *

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199

The catholic church has never interpreted that verse to mean adultery or sexual immorality of one spouse but as an unlawful coupling,like incest. Because reading it the way you do is a contradiction of the rest of the passage and the other Gospels that relate the same incident. Your reading of that verse is actually the protestant understanding which they like to throw at us in anti-catholic apologetics. Seems you keep relying on them more and more, side-stepping the catholic view. Why?

 

[Rubia]

Wow… One woman in a culture that degrades women is a science teacher. And that totally means that all non-virgins in multiple marriages thrown out of their homes when their husbands want to convert to Christianity will marry again. In a patriarchal society where women are treated like trash on a regular basis.

And I live in the real world, not a fantasy land. I assume that you think that the “Holy Spirit” also converts wife beaters into model husbands and would suggest that rather than divorcing women should pray and reconcile with their husbands. (Although most abusive husbands are sociopaths who go back to their abusive behavior.)

Not only do your comments come off as from an unbeliever, they also betray a great deal of prejudice and ignorance about cultures you know little about. You seem convinced that Africans are utterly incapable of being decent people. What is that about? You actually think it takes an extraordinary miracle for an ordinary African man to be good to his women, like a sociopath becoming loving. Really? Do you think they are a different species? Or perhaps they are all sociopaths.

Western people should put some more effort into learning about other peoples from those peoples themselves or those who live closely with them and not simply rely on the highly skewed constant negative portrayals of other peoples on the western media. This is especially true of Africa which according to the media, only produces disease, famine, poverty, war and wild animals. I bet just one trip there will leave you highly distrustful of media portrayals.

 

[Brendan]

Wow… One woman in a culture that degrades women is a science teacher.

StC, go back and read my statements, I said that I knew several.

And that totally means that all non-virgins in multiple marriages thrown out of their homes when their husbands want to convert to Christianity will marry again. In a patriarchal society where women are treated like trash on a regular basis.

StC, all these statements prove is that you know little about Africa.

And I live in the real world, not a fantasy land. I assume that you think that the “Holy Spirit” also converts wife beaters into model husbands and would suggest that rather than divorcing women should pray and reconcile with their husbands. (Although most abusive husbands are sociopaths who go back to their abusive behavior.)

I live in the same world you do. The one created by God, the one where the Holy Spirit operates, and is effective at changing hearts.

THAT is the REAL world.

 

[LongingSoul]

False yet again.

From Catholic answers:

The catholic church has never interpreted that verse to mean adultery or sexual immorality of one spouse but as an unlawful coupling,like incest. Because reading it the way you do is a contradiction of the rest of the passage and the other Gospels that relate the same incident. Your reading of that verse is actually the protestant understanding which they like to throw at us in anti-catholic apologetics. Seems you keep relying on them more and more, side-stepping the catholic view. Why?

Honestly, what is wrong with you? I’ve never dialogued with you before yet you seem to have taken such a snarling, snarky attitude and overlaid it with lashings of snarling, snarkiness dressing.

You brought up the verse as a demonstration of Jesus teaching on annulment. It is not. Nowhere have I ever said that the verse is Jesus permission to divorce as per Protestant theology and yet your whole snarky response implies that this the gist of my point. It is not and never was.

Annulment is a Catholic response to certain human realities with regards to marriage. Jesus Himself did not make the teaching on annulment. It is part of Catholic Tradition.

Cut the snark. It’s nauseating.

 

[Rubia]

Honestly, what is wrong with you? I’ve never dialogued with you before yet you seem to have taken such a snarling, snarky attitude and overlaid it with lashings of snarling, snarkiness dressing.

You brought up the verse as a demonstration of Jesus teaching on annulment. It is not. Nowhere have I ever said that the verse is Jesus permission to divorce as per Protestant theology and yet your whole snarky response implies that this the gist of my point. It is not and never was.

Annulment is a Catholic response to certain human realities with regards to marriage. Jesus Himself did not make the teaching on annulment. It is part of Catholic Tradition.

Cut the snark. It’s nauseating.

Nothing is wrong with me, thank you very much.

I do however find snarling and snarky those people who purport to take on a pedestal and lecture and rebuke others about having “a true catholic spirit” while going ahead to tell lies about catholicism.

Jesus’ words ARE a demonstration of annulments. Your mere announcement that it is not is just that. Your announcements. Like those about the supposedly true catholic spirit. You can similarly cut the superior attitude too. It’s nauseating.

Again, from Catholic answers on Mathew and its reference to invalid marriages (and therefore annulments).

Full Question
In Matthew 19:3-9 when the Pharisees are questioning Jesus about divorce, Jesus seems to make an exception in the case of adultery. Why, then, doesn’t the Catholic Church follow what Jesus says in the Bible and allow divorce in such circumstances?

Answer
Let us recall first of all that Matthew’s audience was mainly Jews, and only Matthew’s Gospel has this exception clause.

The word “adultery” is not what Jesus said, although many Bible translations use this word. If Jesus intended to say adultery, he would have used the word moicheia, meaning “adultery,” but instead he used the word porneia, meaning illicit or invalid.

His audience, the Jews, knew exactly what Jesus meant. Leviticus 18:6-16 list marriages that are illegal for Jews because they are between certain degrees of consanguinity or were with a Gentile, which was forbidden. The Jews knew this, and this is why Matthew’s Gospel includes this exception. The Catholic Church does follow what Jesus says, when his words are properly translated.
Answered by: Jan Wakelin

Q&A Newsletter
Enter your email to receive free weekly quick questions: *

You insinuated that the Catholic Church does not follow Jesus’ words in annulments. That the church made up concessions about invalid marriages that Jesus did not make. That is a lie.

And it istrue that your reading of Mathew is that preferred by protestants. I simply point out that you seem to use their arguments more than the catholic ones. For someone who cares so much about having a true catholic spirit, that should give you pause.

 

[LongingSoul]

Nothing is wrong with me, thank you very much.

I do however find snarling and snarky those people who purport to take on a pedestal and lecture and rebuke others about having “a true catholic spirit” while going ahead to tell lies about catholicism.

Jesus’ words ARE a demonstration of annulments. Your mere announcement that it is not is just that. Your announcements. Like those about the supposedly true catholic spirit. You can similarly cut the superior attitude too. It’s nauseating.

Again, from Catholic answers on Mathew and its reference to invalid marriages (and therefore annulments).

You insinuated that the Catholic Church does not follow Jesus’ words in annulments. That the church made up concessions about invalid marriages that Jesus did not make. That is a lie.

And it istrue that your reading of Mathew is that preferred by protestants. I simply point out that you seem to use their arguments more than the catholic ones. For someone who cares so much about having a true catholic spirit, that should give you pause.

In your nasty interpretation of my posts, you have created a strawman to justify your condemnation of my very faith. Cheers. The fact is that I don’t ‘insinuate’ that the Catholic Church made up the rules or that it does not follow Jesus words on annulments. The Catholic Church interprets the scriptures in accordance with the gift given to the Church by Christ.

The annulments process as we know it is directly related to the sacramentality of marriage. Natural impediments to valid marriage like incest and civil impediments like age of consent or ethnic prohibitions can be acknowledged universally without faith. When Jesus said what God has joined, no man can separate… He made no exceptions regarding the new sacramental aspect of marriage. Those aspects came to light in the context of the Churchs administration of the sacrament of marriage. The Church (completely in keeping with the spirit) instituted the annulments process to deal with impediments to the sacrament of marriage.

When you stated "Let us be fools, but fools for him instead of clever humans who think Jesus could use an update on 21st century wisdom on marriage and sin." … you did not take into account that the Church has been guardian and interpreter of scripture from day one. Pope Francis is not a ‘fool’ for inviting re examination of this wound in the body since that is what the Church has always done in order to keep Truth at the forefront of the Catholic faith.