St. Paul, in the only passage where he talks about these issues refers us to the law, and therefore – by common interpretation, the Mosaic law is implied; from Genesis through Dueteronomy; eg: the Pentateuch because of who his audience was.
Canon law, or laws/decisions from church councils, were only developed to the point found in the Bible about the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), concerning Circumcision. Laws relating to marriage, and divorce, were not codified that I am aware of at the time St. Paul spoke, so it’s not possible that Paul was referring to church law when he made his statements. Note: The law I was quoting from is the 1984 code of Canon Law for Latins; There are other codes of Canon law for ‘Oriental’ Rite churches so the things I mentioned may be different in other rites. I haven’t checked; I am only citing the Catholic Church’s code of law here.
In any event, the only place I am aware of that we have which is not a development of doctrine and where questions of infallibility arise, is scripture from St. Paul and the council of Jerusalem (which is an infallible council).
So read Acts 15 to see that no cannons specific to divorce were discussed in the fist council; and then read Romans 7:1-4 to see that Paul still referenced ‘the law’ when discussing divorce. And he is not talking about physical death, when he says “you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ.”
His logic, which refers to legal obligations regarding marriage, includes deaths of a spiritual nature.
I am not sure when the canon’s regarding the “right” of a spouse to divorce the adulterer came into effect, but none the less – it still follows the logic that Moses proposed.
If a man finds an impurity in the woman, an ‘unclean-ness’ idol worship, AKA ‘fornication’; she may be divorced/put away.
Moses did not say a woman can be divorced for every cause, but spoke in ways which suggest very strongly that she did not follow the same God that the Man did AKA was unclean on account of a sin of some kind. ( Dueteronomy 24:1 , Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:8 )
Now, with these things in mind: Reread Matthew 5:31, knowing that ‘adultery’ and ‘idolatry’ and ‘fornication’ are synonymous in the Old Testament regarding the sins of Israel with other nations.
Jesus himself could not damn, nor judge the world, if he has not the right to divorce the sinful among the Christians, his bride. Hence, divorce itself must be possible and permitted – for Jesus tells us clearly that not all who say “Lord Lord” will enter into his kingdom in heaven.
And again; Those who inherited Moses’ seat before Christ’s time, and I mean before God took the authority to bind and loose away from Israel and ‘gave it to another’, These priests of the old testament who could bind and loose, at various times (eg: for example some of the Priest-Prophets) in Israel’s history went so far as to DEMAND that divorces be effected where disparity of cult was an issue. For example, it was said symbolically in “Joshua 24:14 – ‘put away’” , and literally in Ezra 10:3.
But it was not always strictly forbidden in the law to marry these women. So, we’re seeing binding and loosing on account of sin, that took effect after the marriage had taken place to begin with.
The Passages you originally refer to, especially those found in Matthew; are very much about adultery, but that is only one of the sins which is very much in scope.
The Pharisees were explicitly trying to get Jesus killed, in exactly the same way that John the Baptist had been killed; by Herod, who had married a divorced woman while her husband were still alive. eg: Herod married Herodias, Philip’s wife – while Philip was still alive.
The scriptures tell us, plainly, that : Matthew 19:1,
That when he had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Juda beyond the Jordan.
eg: Jesus went to the particular place where John the Baptist had been baptizing people and crying out against king Herod for ‘adultery’ ; and also, as a complicating factor, remember that Herod thought that Jesus was John the baptist raised from the dead. So it’s not surprising that Jesus’ enemies asked him a malicious question about divorce immediately upon arrival: Matthew 19:3
For they were expecting to trap him in his words, and be able to accuse him before Herod for repeating the charges that John had made; which if said in plain words would be grounds to have Jesus killed. But Jesus answered them subtly, forcing them to admit their own sin in order to be able to accuse him of sin; something they could not do in a court of law without loosing face before the people.
