Divorce and abandonment

[minkymurph]

I have a question in regard to 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

'***To the married I give this command - not I but the Lord - that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say - I and not the Lord - that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. … But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is a peace God has called you to. ***

My question is: Is Paul saying abandonment is legitimate grounds for divorce and the innocent party commits no sin in remarrying?

My reasons for this statement are as follows:

**1.**B] Is the first part addressed to Jews that became Christian?
Paul states this passage is a command from God. To my knowledge Jewish women could not divorce their husbands. A man could divorce his wife but the wife could not divorce the husband, but I stand to be corrected.

2. Is the second passage addressed to Gentiles?
I say this as I believe it less likely men that followed Judaism would have been married to an unbeliever. It’s possible they may have been, but at that time more likely Gentiles would have been married to an unbeliever. In addition, Paul says he is not speaking as to the Lord. Gentiles would not have been former Jews and thus would not have adhered to the same criteria as Jews in terms of divorce.

3. In the first passage Paul uses the phrase should not not must not
Paul is not saying a man cannot divorce a wife who separates under any circumstances, but rather he should not. He says the woman cannot remarry, but does not say the man cannot remarry.

4. In the second passage he says if an unbeliever leaves the brother or sister is not bound
Is Paul saying they are free to remarry?

The reason I ask this question is it seems harsh and unjust one who is abandoned is not free to remarry a It would have been particularly harsh for women in the first century, and significantly so if they had children. The same can be said in contemporary society for the party compelled to raise children alone, and annulment does not solve the issue. In contemporary society the one who abandons their spouse may remarry or cohabit long term, and in such circumstances the idea of never giving up on them is unrealistic. In fact, I know someone who was abandoned and her ex is now on his forth wife. Anyone think she should be awaiting his return?

Jesus said anyone who divorces his wife other than on the grounds of illicit marriage and marries another, but this was addressed to Jews and as I understand application of Jewish laws. Did Jesus really intend the word ‘illicit’ to be interpreted as invalid from the beginning, or is it at least possible it can be interpreted as invalidated by actions such as abandonment and marrying another?

I would invite views on abandonment and remarriage.

 

[1ke]

My question is: Is Paul saying abandonment is legitimate grounds for divorce and the innocent party commits no sin in remarrying?

No. Not any two people. Two unbaptized people in specific circumstances.

Look up the Pauline Privilege regarding dissolution of the natural bond of two unbaptized individuals.

 

[PRmerger]

I have a question in regard to 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

'***To the married I give this command - not I but the Lord - that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say - I and not the Lord - that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. … But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is a peace God has called you to. ***

My question is: Is Paul saying abandonment is legitimate grounds for divorce and the innocent party commits no sin in remarrying?

My reasons for this statement are as follows:

**1.**B] Is the first part addressed to Jews that became Christian?

Paul states this passage is a command from God. To my knowledge Jewish women could not divorce their husbands. A man could divorce his wife but the wife could not divorce the husband, but I stand to be corrected.

2. Is the second passage addressed to Gentiles?
I say this as I believe it less likely men that followed Judaism would have been married to an unbeliever. It’s possible they may have been, but at that time more likely Gentiles would have been married to an unbeliever. In addition, Paul says he is not speaking as to the Lord. Gentiles would not have been former Jews and thus would not have adhered to the same criteria as Jews in terms of divorce.

3. In the first passage Paul uses the phrase should not not must not
Paul is not saying a man cannot divorce a wife who separates under any circumstances, but rather he should not. He says the woman cannot remarry, but does not say the man cannot remarry.

4. In the second passage he says if an unbeliever leaves the brother or sister is not bound
Is Paul saying they are free to remarry?

The reason I ask this question is it seems harsh and unjust one who is abandoned is not free to remarry a It would have been particularly harsh for women in the first century, and significantly so if they had children. The same can be said in contemporary society for the party compelled to raise children alone, and annulment does not solve the issue. In contemporary society the one who abandons their spouse may remarry or cohabit long term, and in such circumstances the idea of never giving up on them is unrealistic. In fact, I know someone who was abandoned and her ex is now on his forth wife. Anyone think she should be awaiting his return?

Jesus said anyone who divorces his wife other than on the grounds of illicit marriage and marries another, but this was addressed to Jews and as I understand application of Jewish laws. Did Jesus really intend the word ‘illicit’ to be interpreted as invalid from the beginning, or is it at least possible it can be interpreted as invalidated by actions such as abandonment and marrying another?

I would invite views on abandonment and remarriage.

Yes, my friend, what 1ke says is correct.

It speaks to how solemn and profound a vow to marry is. It is a vow made before God.

Abandonment is a tragic, tragic thing, but it does not negate the fact that what were once 2 people, did indeed become ONE.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Yes, read about the Pauline Privilege:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege
Wikipedia: “Pauline Privilege”

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/
“What is the Pauline Privilege?”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272
“Marriage, Divorce and The Pauline Privilege”

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Divorce (in Moral Theology)”

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks for the info on the Pauline privilege.

If I understand it correctly, and I appreciate I am putting this simplistically, if you enter into a sacramental marriage you cannot divorce, but in the case of a non-sacramental marriage you can divorce. Is this correct?

A further question I have is this:

It has often been said the law favours the guilty. An example is Criminal law is often said to favour the defendant at the expense of the victims rights. The law on divorce appears to have the same effect. I will explain my reasons.

Jesus said what God has joined no man can tear asunder, He said this in response to a question that in fact was really about the resurrection, not divorce, but he addresses divorce. Imagine Jesus is asked this question.

‘My husband/wife has left me. I raised two children alone. My husband/wife divorced me and re-married someone else. They have been married for 10 years (hypothetical) and they have children. My children are now young adults and I would like to re-marry for companionship.’

Would his answer be, ‘I sympathize with your situation, but no you can’t. I concede the chances your husband/wife will return to you are zero, but once you make a promise before God you are joined for life - no exceptions - even for the sake of the innocent party. No matter what your husband/wife has done and irrespective of the fact they have not kept their vow and it is highly unlikely they will ever return to you, God holds you to the vow.’

Thus, the guilty can pretty much do what they want and the innocent suffer. It could be argued the guilty are risking their salvation, but in the meantime what appears to be an injustice prevails. Would a benevolent God really say, ‘Sorry, I’m holding you to your vow - no exceptions?’

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the info on the Pauline privilege.

If I understand it correctly, and I appreciate I am putting this simplistically, if you enter into a sacramental marriage you cannot divorce, but in the case of a non-sacramental marriage you can divorce. Is this correct?

Marriage between the baptized, once consummated, becomes indissoluble. Therefore if one must separate from their spouse (even divorce legally) one is not free to remarry.

Marriage between the unbaptized, or a baptized-non baptized pair, can be dissolved in some cases. Thefore if they separate and legally divorce they might be free to marry another person.

Would a benevolent God really say, ‘Sorry, I’m holding you to your vow - no exceptions?’

Well, yeah.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the info on the Pauline privilege.

If I understand it correctly, and I appreciate I am putting this simplistically, if you enter into a sacramental marriage you cannot divorce, but in the case of a non-sacramental marriage you can divorce. Is this correct?

A couple can always divorce. Legally.

They just cannot re-marry.

Because, actually, they are still married.

Here’s a parallel with the sacraments of baptism and ordination, albeit not perfect:

Both involve a mystical, profound change in the universe. IOW, what existed 3 seconds prior to (ordination, baptism) exists no more. The universe is changed forever at the moment of the configuration of these sacraments. This indelible mark cannot be erased–ever–from the soul of those so gifted.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into what happens into the soul of the newly baptized (and, I add, the ordained), nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

So, too, we could say with marriage a profound change occurs in the universe. What was once 2 are now 1. At the moment of the sacramental union.

So even though one can legally divorce, this legal decree cannot change the ontology.

They are still 1.

Until death.

 

[rcwitness]

Of course, many non Catholic Christians teach a doctrine of Abandonment, which permits divorce and remarriage. These are usually strict Bible Christians. So I don’t know how they reach that conclusion, when St Paul specifically addresses abandonment, and how the law requires them to remain “single” (still bound to the marriage), until the spouse in no longer living.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Thanks for the info on the Pauline privilege.

If I understand it correctly, and I appreciate I am putting this simplistically, if you enter into a sacramental marriage you cannot divorce, but in the case of a non-sacramental marriage you can divorce. Is this correct?

A further question I have is this:

It has often been said the law favours the guilty. An example is Criminal law is often said to favour the defendant at the expense of the victims rights. The law on divorce appears to have the same effect. I will explain my reasons.

Jesus said what God has joined no man can tear asunder, He said this in response to a question that in fact was really about the resurrection, not divorce, but he addresses divorce. Imagine Jesus is asked this question.

‘My husband/wife has left me. I raised two children alone. My husband/wife divorced me and re-married someone else. They have been married for 10 years (hypothetical) and they have children. My children are now young adults and I would like to re-marry for companionship.’

Would his answer be, ‘I sympathize with your situation, but no you can’t. I concede the chances your husband/wife will return to you are zero, but once you make a promise before God you are joined for life - no exceptions - even for the sake of the innocent party. No matter what your husband/wife has done and irrespective of the fact they have not kept their vow and it is highly unlikely they will ever return to you, God holds you to the vow.’

Thus, the guilty can pretty much do what they want and the innocent suffer. It could be argued the guilty are risking their salvation, but in the meantime what appears to be an injustice prevails. Would a benevolent God really say, ‘Sorry, I’m holding you to your vow - no exceptions?’

A declaration of nullity is only based on what was true at the time of the actual WEDDING. Abandonment and/or adultery are not grounds for a declaration of nullity (although they may provide insight into the person’s attitude towards marriage).

Is this hard? Absolutely. BUT. Jesus never promised us that life would be easy. He said that if anyone wants to become His disciple, that person must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. This is not about what’s FAIR. It’s about what IS.

Adultery is never acceptable, even if one wants “companionship”. Rather, I would suggest that that person find some other activities, such as volunteering, taking part in social activities, find a hobby, etc. We can never permit sin under the guise of “compassion”.

 

[rcwitness]

A couple can always divorce. Legally.

They just cannot re-marry.

Because, actually, they are still married.

Here’s a parallel with the sacraments of baptism and ordination, albeit not perfect:

Both involve a mystical, profound change in the universe. IOW, what existed 3 seconds prior to (ordination, baptism) exists no more. The universe is changed forever at the moment of the configuration of these sacraments. This indelible mark cannot be erased–ever–from the soul of those so gifted.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into what happens into the soul of the newly baptized (and, I add, the ordained), nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

So, too, we could say with marriage a profound change occurs in the universe. What was once 2 are now 1. At the moment of the sacramental union.

So even though one can legally divorce, this legal decree cannot change the ontology.

They are still 1.

Until death.

Would it be more accurate to say “civil” instead of “legal” divorce? I’m sure it’s what you mean, civil law, as opposed to God’s law? Not trying to nit pick, just a distinction for clarity.

 

[PRmerger]

Would it be more accurate to say “civil” instead of “legal” divorce? I’m sure it’s what you mean, civil law, as opposed to God’s law? Not trying to nit pick, just a distinction for clarity.

Sure. I don’t have a problem with that.

Although I suppose a case could be made that when we’re talking “legal” here this references man’s law.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

If I understand it correctly, and I appreciate I am putting this simplistically, if you enter into a sacramental marriage you cannot divorce, but in the case of a non-sacramental marriage you can divorce. Is this correct?

Not exactly. Read the Apostle Paul’s words again. A Christian is never free to walk away from his/her marriage, if the other partner wants to stay married. Dissolution of the natural marriage with the non-Christian can only happen if that person departs.

…No matter what your husband/wife has done and irrespective of the fact they have not kept their vow and it is highly unlikely they will ever return to you, God holds you to the vow.’

Thus, the guilty can pretty much do what they want and the innocent suffer. It could be argued the guilty are risking their salvation, but in the meantime what appears to be an injustice prevails. Would a benevolent God really say, ‘Sorry, I’m holding you to your vow - no exceptions?’

The real injustice is the breakdown of marriage and family life. We see the effects on innocent children and abandoned spouses every day.

In reality, if someone is quick to abandon his/her marriage vows, this may be evidence that a valid Christian marriage never existed from the start, as he/she never truly intended to make a permanent vow. The diocesan marriage tribunal can investigate, and possibly grant a decree of nullity.

The moral of this story is the importance of Christian marriage preparation. We live in a pagan world where marriage is not valued. Many people today enter marriages with no expectation of permanence or fidelity. Christians are called to a different standard.

 

[minkymurph]

A couple can always divorce. Legally.

They just cannot re-marry.

Because, actually, they are still married.

Here’s a parallel with the sacraments of baptism and ordination, albeit not perfect:

Both involve a mystical, profound change in the universe. IOW, what existed 3 seconds prior to (ordination, baptism) exists no more. The universe is changed forever at the moment of the configuration of these sacraments. This indelible mark cannot be erased–ever–from the soul of those so gifted.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into what happens into the soul of the newly baptized (and, I add, the ordained), nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

So, too, we could say with marriage a profound change occurs in the universe. What was once 2 are now 1. At the moment of the sacramental union.

So even though one can legally divorce, this legal decree cannot change the ontology.

They are still 1.

Until death.

I think I see what you mean. Catholics believe marriage is a sacrament and no sacrament can be ‘undone?’ You can’t be de-married any more than you can be ‘de-baptized?’

I know this may be going off the point but what about ex-communication? If you are ex-communicated you are no longer Catholic even though you received sacraments. Is that correct?

There was also a time when God rejected Israel irrespective of the Covenant. He said, ‘I am not your God and your are not people.’ Israel broke the Covenant so God was entitled to do the same? I know I’m explaining it badly so I hope you get the gist.

 

[minkymurph]

Of course, many non Catholic Christians teach a doctrine of Abandonment, which permits divorce and remarriage. These are usually strict Bible Christians. So I don’t know how they reach that conclusion, when St Paul specifically addresses abandonment, and how the law requires them to remain “single” (still bound to the marriage), until the spouse in no longer living.

I know some people interpret Christ’s words to mean adultery breaks the marital bond as the two are no longer one but three.

In cases of abandonment one party is not upholding their side of the ‘bargain’ and as such this releases the other. This is how Contract Law operates and if you believe marriage is not a sacrament but a contract between a man and woman, (not saying they are right) their reasoning is correct.

 

[minkymurph]

A declaration of nullity is only based on what was true at the time of the actual WEDDING. Abandonment and/or adultery are not grounds for a declaration of nullity (although they may provide insight into the person’s attitude towards marriage).

Is this hard? Absolutely. BUT. Jesus never promised us that life would be easy. He said that if anyone wants to become His disciple, that person must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. This is not about what’s FAIR. It’s about what IS.

Adultery is never acceptable, even if one wants “companionship”. Rather, I would suggest that that person find some other activities, such as volunteering, taking part in social activities, find a hobby, etc. We can never permit sin under the guise of “compassion”.

Platonic relationships can be very fulfilling. I find them more fulfilling.

I can see what your saying in that it’s not about what fair but what is, but it must be about being just as God is Just. What we know from our own law is matters that are resolved on the basis of what is can often produce an unjust result. This is why the common law is often tempered with the law of Equity. I have difficulty with the notion God could be inequitable, and rigidly adheres to what is in a manner that produces and unjust result.

 

[minkymurph]

Not exactly. Read the Apostle Paul’s words again. A Christian is never free to walk away from his/her marriage, if the other partner wants to stay married. Dissolution of the natural marriage with the non-Christian can only happen if that person departs.

The real injustice is the breakdown of marriage and family life. We see the effects on innocent children and abandoned spouses every day.

I agree.

In reality, if someone is quick to abandon his/her marriage vows, this may be evidence that a valid Christian marriage never existed from the start, as he/she never truly intended to make a permanent vow. The diocesan marriage tribunal can investigate, and possibly grant a decree of nullity.

What I am really searching for is a justice for the innocent party, One party may have fully entered into the marriage and for a marriage tribunal to hold the other party did not may in fact be true, but imagine coming to terms with that decision. A person you loved, wanted to stay with forever, build a home with and had children with was never married to you all that time. You were married but they were not. It is truly a tragedy.

The moral of this story is the importance of Christian marriage preparation. We live in a pagan world where marriage is not valued. Many people today enter marriages with no expectation of permanence or fidelity. Christians are called to a different standard.

Too true. A couple of years ago I started a new job. I had to give them an emergency contact - in my case my husband. My manager said to me, ‘Is that your partner?’ I said, ‘No it’s my husband’ and he looked surprised (though tried not to). I replied, ‘We are really boring.’

I also got a letter recently from the school. They wanted authorization for my son to receive a vaccination for meningitis. The form stated it had to be signed by the mother, or; a spouse who was living with mother when the child was conceived, named on the birth certificate, formally adopted the child, has legal guardianship as a stepfather and a few other things. What is happening in the world?:hypno:

Preparation is a good thing but personally speaking I don’t think anything can prepare you for a lifetime commitment. I’m a convert to Catholicism and had been married 13 years when I converted. One day I can recall thinking, 'Now I’m Catholic I can’t get out of this marriage. AaaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Scary, Scary, Scary!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Too true. A couple of years ago I started a new job. I had to give them an emergency contact - in my case my husband. My manager said to me, ‘Is that your partner?’ I said, ‘No it’s my husband’ and he looked surprised (though tried not to). I replied, ‘We are really boring.’

I also got a letter recently from the school. They wanted authorization for my son to receive a vaccination for meningitis. The form stated it had to be signed by the mother, or; a spouse who was living with mother when the child was conceived, named on the birth certificate, formally adopted the child, has legal guardianship as a stepfather and a few other things.

One day I can recall thinking, 'Now I’m Catholic I can’t get out of this marriage.

I wish this was the understanding for all people who believe in the Bible.

NB: We are talking about divorce and re-marriage.

All people, even Catholics, can indeed “get out of this marriage”.