Did Martin Luther allow divorce?

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

What about his wife? Did she break her vows and run away from a convent? The accusation was made above. How can her actions be defended?

No, the poster accused Luther of “inducing” her to break her vows. Luther did no such thing. Katerina made her own choices, in everything from her husband to escaping the monastic life.

She was confined to a monastic life at age 5 or 6, and after years of indoctrination, took vows at age 15, as did all the other “unwanted” girls of her time. The only other option available to a woman of her time and place would’ve been marriage, which was impossible since she had no means of paying any dowry after her family abandoned her to the church. Point is, her vows were not made freely in the least. Age alone would throw into question whether proper ‘consent’ existed, and when the choice is essentially “take the vow or take the vow,” you take the vow. As soon as she saw a potential escape, she seized it.

Thanks. And a vow under duress is not binding. Do you have documentation that this happened to her?

On the ‘Luther-Bashing’ thread I cited this thread as an example of Luther-Bashing. Prime example, where history is distorted for the sake of polemics. I am making myself very popular over there, I think. Not long for this forum…

 

[steido01]

Do you have documentation that this happened to her?

Pick any biography. The only variances will be in exactly what age she was sent to the convent. Most settle around 5 or 6, some outliers say as young as 3.

 

[rcwitness]

What about his wife? Did she break her vows and run away from a convent? The accusation was made above. How can her actions be defended?

Maybe they rejected making those oaths?

I dont think the Reformers practiced vows of celibacy.

Perhaps they have some ground in James?

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your “Yes” mean “Yes” and your “No” mean “No,” that you may not incur condemnation.

Then again, “that is an epistle of straw”…

 

[ltwin]

Maybe they rejected making those oaths?

I dont think the Reformers practiced vows of celibacy.

Luther was not completely against vows, but he did believe they were not eternally binding. The Lutheran criticism of monastic vows is contained in Article 27 of the Augsburg Confession:

18] First, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach on our part that it is lawful for all men who are not fitted for single life to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the ordinance and commandment of God. 19] But the commandment of God is 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have 20] his own wife. Nor is it the commandment only, but also the creation and ordinance of God, which forces those to marry who are not excepted by a singular work of God, according to the text Gen. 2:18: It is not good 21]that the man should be alone. Therefore they do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance of God.

22] What objection can be raised to this? Let men extol the obligation of a vow as much as they list, yet shall they not bring to pass that the vow 23] annuls the commandment of God. The Canons teach that the right of the superior is excepted in every vow; [that vows are not binding against the decision of the Pope;] much less, therefore, are these vows of force which are against the commandments of God.

24] Now, if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any cause whatever, the Roman Pontiffs could never have given dispensation for it is not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is simply 25] divine. But the Roman Pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is to be observed in this obligation, and therefore 26] we read that many times they have dispensed from vows. The case of the King of Aragon who was called back from the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own times. [Now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing temporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on account of the distress of souls.]

Continued in next post

 

[ltwin]

27] In the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or effect of a vow when, at the same time, they have not a word to say of the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible, that it ought to be free, 28] and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But it is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power of man. 29] And how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliberately! Young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are persuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore 30] it is not fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous and deliberate action.

31] Most canonical laws rescind vows made before the age of fifteen; for before that age there does not seem sufficient judgment in a person to decide concerning a perpetual life. 32] Another Canon, granting more to the weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow to be made before the age of eighteen. 33] But which of these two Canons shall we follow? The most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries, because most of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages.

34] Finally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be dissolved. 35] For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (XXVII. Quaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Here is something on Katerina von Bora
https://lutheranreformation.org/history/katharina-von-bora-luther/

 

[rcwitness]

34] Finally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be dissolved. 35] For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (XXVII. Quaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.

Intersting. Thanks Itwin. I know you were probiding a source regarding vows in general.

This section seems to support the indissolubility of Marriage, no?

 

[ltwin]

This section seems to support the indissolubility of Marriage, no?

Yes, in most cases. However, Lutherans would also say that there are limited grounds in which a marriage is dissolved. I provided explanation for what those grounds are according to Luther himself earlier in the thread.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

This section seems to support the indissolubility of Marriage, no?

Yes, in most cases. However, Lutherans would also say that there are limited grounds in which a marriage is dissolved. I provided explanation for what those grounds are according to Luther himself earlier in the thread.

Yes, thanks again.

I find this reasoning unconvincing.

Matthew’s “exception clause” did not state adultery was grounds for remarriage. Rather, that a union of flesh which was a case of “porneia” can be divorced (or a betrothal which was broken through “porneia” can be divorced).

Let me explain one reason why! Mark, in chapter 10, records the same encounter with the pharisees questioning Him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Mark gives NO exception to divorce! But evangelicals claim Jesus’s answer in fact affirms adultery and abandonment are grounds for dissolving marriage! Well why would Mark (and Luke and Paul) leave out this very significant Teaching, unless Matthew was referring to an unlawful sexual union which can be dissolved?

St Paul specifically addresses the Sacrament and its terms. He recognizes no grounds for a Christian marriage to be disolved. He specifically upholds (and from the Lord) that even if spouses should separate, only death can release them from the law of God.

 

[rcwitness]

She turned down no less than two other suitors before finally demanding that Luther himself marry her. He obliged.

This struck me as funny. Maybe the advent of modern women’s empowerment?

P.S. Im not criticizing their marriage. If they had a good, legitimate Christian marriage, which endured, then I respect it very much.

 

[ltwin]

Matthew’s “exception clause” did not state adultery was grounds for remarriage. Rather, that a union of flesh which was a case of “porneia” can be divorced (or a betrothal which was broken through “porneia” can be divorced).

I understand this is the official Catholic line, but it’s a disputed point as to what specifically was meant by porneia since the word had a range of meaning. Obviously, Luther thought it meant adultery. Not sure if he ever addressed his reasons for interpreting porneia as adultery.

He specifically upholds (and from the Lord) that even if spouses should separate, only death can release them from the law of God.

What’s interesting is that Luther seems to say that. He appears to spiritualize the penalty for adultery under the Law (death) and says that essentially a spouse who commits adultery is, for purposes of the marriage, dead (the judge, i.e. God, has passed the sentence but has not taken his life) and because of that the innocent party should be free to remarry after being granted an official divorce.

 

[rcwitness]

I understand this is the official Catholic line, but it’s a disputed point as to what specifically was meant by porneia since the word had a range of meaning. Obviously, Luther thought it meant adultery. Not sure if he ever addressed his reasons for interpreting porneia as adultery.

What’s interesting is that Luther seems to say that. He appears to spiritualize the penalty for adultery under the Law (death) and says that essentially a spouse who commits adultery is, for purposes of the marriage, dead (the judge, i.e. God, has passed the sentence but has not taken his life) and because of that the innocent party should be free to remarry after being granted an official divorce.

Its not so much what Porneia means, but which relationship Jesus is referring to. Jesus is referring to a man and woman joined by flesh (apart from God), which can be divorced, NOT a Christian marriage (Sacrament). For example, Pre-marital sex, sex with a prostitute, homosexual sex, incest, marriage to an unbeliever in Christ…

Paul says the opposite. He specifically charges a separated spouse to remain single.

 

[ltwin]

Paul says the opposite. He specifically charges a separated spouse to remain single.

Yes, Paul tells us that if you or I separate from our spouses without a moral reason (like adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever) that we should not go off and get married again–we should stay single or return to our spouse and ask them to forgive us and take us back.

It’s not too difficult to conclude that Paul is speaking of solving the immediate issue–the guilty party cannot reconcile with their spouse as God requires if they go off and get married again.

Even here, he’s only talking to the guilty party. The innocent party who is waiting for their loser of a partner to come to their senses is not told you have to spend the rest of your life enslaved to someone who left you and abandoned you and trapped you while they go off and live happily ever after with a new partner.

 

[rcwitness]

Ummm… where is your evidence of this? You are completely reading things into the text!

Paul makes no mention of a guilty or innocent spouse!!

1 Corinthians 7
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

 

[ltwin]

Ummm… where is your evidence of this? You are completely reading things into the text!

The woman who left her husband is the guilty party. He’s telling the Corinthians if you leave your spouse don’t get remarried but remain single or return to your spouse. No where does he imply that the other spouse must suffer forever and ever because the other partner chose to sin.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Ummm… where is your evidence of this? You are completely reading things into the text!

The woman who left her husband is the guilty party. He’s telling the Corinthians if you leave your spouse don’t get remarried but remain single or return to your spouse. No where does he imply that the other spouse must suffer forever and ever because the other partner chose to sin.

Again, i agree about the woman in his example. But you are assuming something unspoken about the innocent spouse. Or even that the woman’s husband was innocent. That is your assumption without Scripture saying so.

 

[rcwitness]

No where does he imply that the other spouse must suffer forever and ever because the other partner chose to sin.

Romans 8
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

1 Cor. 6
To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

Philippians 1
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake

1 Thessalonians 3
For when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction

2 Timothy
Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but take your share of suffering for the gospel in the power of God

Hebrews 11
He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward

1 Peter 1
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials,

1 Peter 2
For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly.

1 Peter 2
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps

 

[TertiumQuid]

Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. Good ol’ Oberman has some real, solid quotes on the subject. He speaks about it on page 197 of Luther: Man between God and the Devil:

Even though steido01 is on a brief CA forums vacation until Feb. 8, this is a quick follow-up on the documentation in regard to Staupitz releasing Luther from his vows. Yes, it is correct that many respectable biographers (both for and against Luther) generally accept that it actually happened. I took a detailed look at three such popular biographers and went through their documentation. What I found surprising is that the main historical proof appears to be a few Table Talk statements. The Table Talk is really best used as corroborating evidence for something documented elsewhere. I’ve yet to find anything documented elsewhere (a letter, treatise, etc.) about the release. On my own blog I will post all the tedious details. While it probably did happen, I wouldn’t dogmatically use the argument to defend Luther’s character. I don’t recall Luther using such an argument to validate his marriage either. If though Staupitz did release Luther from his vows, it would be an error (within the Catholic worldview) to chastise Luther for breaking his vows and getting married, regardless of how Luther felt about the validity of those vows.

 

[rcwitness]

Itwin, I want to say thank you for your many posts between us. I certainly appreciate the difficulty over this topic.

I find it to be one of the greatest divisions of doctrine among the Churches! And even a great cause of many Catholics leaving the Catholic Church to marry in a non-Catholic Church!

There seems to be a very strong divide over the issue. And there are also many non-Catholic Christian churches which hold to the Catholic position on the absolute indissolubility of a Christian marriage.

 

[Axsenex]

“The eternal law of nature, that the weak should be coerced by the strong.”