Divorce question from Catholic Answers reponse on Matthew 19:9

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcarollo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcarollo

Guest
OK, help me understand this answer – because it makes no sense to me… (highlighted in bold)…

(NOTE: I’m a former Protestant currently exploring Catholicism, hoping to take RCIA sometime next year. In the meantime, doing a lot of self-learning and running across an occasional difficulty — such as this one. Fortunately, for most of the difficulties I’ve faced in the past, I have found that patience does usually pays off in the end – so perhaps this will be just another case. So, my apologies ahead of time if my tone seems at all “snarky”. I’m just trying to get to the truth!)

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

*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.

So in other words, is this saying Jesus isn’t talking about married people at all – but only an engaged, cohabitating couple ? But that doesn’t make sense of the phrase: “whoever divorces his wife”. He could only be saying this if he’s talking about a true marriage. Secondly, the context of the discussion initiated by the Pharisees (verse 2) is clearly divorce between truly married people.

Please me out here. It seems to me this interpretation is excessively rigid and doesn’t seem very defensible at all. The plainest sense of the verse here is marital, sexual infidelity. I don’t see how it can be read any other way.

Here’s the full context starting in verse 2:

*19 When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and [a]large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to **Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”

10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”*
Here are several translations of the same passage:

American Standard Version:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

New American Standard Bible:
And I say to you, whoever **divorces his wife, except for [c]immorality, and marries another woman [d]commits adultery[e].”

Douay-Rheims**
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

English Standard Version:
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]

New International Version:
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Jewish Orthodox Bible:
But I [Moshiach] say to you that whoever, the case of zenut (fornication) being excepted, gives the get to his wife and marries another, is guilty of niuf (adultery).*
 
The question is what is the proper interpretation of porneia in the Greek. Whatever this moral condition is, it is reason for separation, but immediately before we are instructed NOT to separate what God has joined. Ergo, this moral condition is NOT consistent with something God has joined.

The logical interpretation therefore is a union not blessed by God, ergo concubinage rather than Holy Matriony. This means the Church has always seen porneia (remember, the Church heard this from Christ before the Church event wrote it down) as “an immoral type of union” e.g. an incestuous relationship, a coerced relationship, an adulterous relationship,these can be broken.

Seems pretty simple. Translations of “porneia” in this verse often reflect the agenda of the translator, not logic.
 
This is the part of the Catholic Answers explaination I don’t get, though…

**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. **

Again: I don’t see how this passage (starting with verse 2) can mean anything OTHER than a real, marriage.
 
Again: I don’t see how this passage (starting with verse 2) can mean anything OTHER than a real, marriage.
Because you are reading translations of a teaching about ancient legal concepts and this makes it hard. Some of scripture is hard.

The question is “who can divorce” and the primary teaching is the first one “what God has joined, do not tear asunder”. Ok, simple enough. Second teaching “If you try to break up what God has joined” you are going to end up committing adultery, since you are attempting the impossible. Ok, got it.

Third teaching, unless there is “porneia” involved. OK, what does porneia mean? Well, if there was a long standing tradition in Christianity that adultery was capable of breaking the matrimonial bond, you could make a case that porneia here means “adulterous conduct by one partner”. American protestants read it exactly like that. Catholics know that this is incorrect, for three reasons:

1.It isn’t theologically correct. Sins don’t break sacramental realities like that.
2.It isn’t historically correct. The Church has annulment not for adultery, but in case the union was impossible from a Catholic standpoint, this reflects the historical understanding.
3.The Church has the power to rule. Keys, bind and loose, etc. SO the Church is the one judging this anyway. It;'s not about a scriptural interpretation for a legally divorced person…it’s about the judgement of the Church.
 
can mean anything OTHER than a real, marriage.
Oh, and, “real” isn’t nearly specific enough. That’s another problem you have…without a good background in the theology of matrimony, you’re spinning your wheels.

Take a question like “If a woman is afraid for her physical safety if she refuses to marry, so she consents to marriage to a violent brute under duress, and says her vows, is she married? Why or why not?”

Working through a question like that requires actual knowledge of sacramental theology, and once the complexities of the situation sink in, you realize that the theology of marriage is not contained within any one verse. Christ’s words are the barest framework of what has to be known for the Church to deal with the institution of marriage.
 
Interesting — I just did some early church fathers reading (Justin Martyr, John Chysostom, etc.) — They’re also consistent with the reading as “pornea” (fornication).

My protestant instincts are obviously more entrenched than I thought — and yet, because it’s been my “default position” for so long, any alternate reading end up being suspect and bears the burden of truth.

Fortunately – I’m happy to say my “default position” is slowly unraveling. Still – it’s frustrating going through the growing pains.

Thanks for your great responses. I’m still learning.
 
I’m curious then… How do you think pornea is defined?
 
As the Church defines it…an immorality (or moral impossibility).

Better question is what Aramaic word Christ used in the first place.
 
Catholic canon law permits husbands and wives to separate, that is -live separately- due to adultery. The marriage still exists, and there cannot be remarriage.

In this context you immediately can see that the passage makes sense.

‘And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, but for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery.’

Matthew 19:9 Original Douai Rheims

Because even after putting away the spouse to attempt to marry again is still adultery.

It takes a crime like this to suspend the rights given in the marriage contract. Otherwise to live separately requires the consent of both spouses.
 
So is this accurate — the Catholic Church would permit a divorce in the case of adultary, just NOT re-marriage (unless it can be found that the original marriage sacrament is invalid and can be annulled)? THat might be over-simplifiying it a bit, but that’s how I understand it.
 
You’d do well to repost this question on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. That’s where the experts on marriage* law* hang out.
 
All this philosophical chat is fine, but out here in the real world-would Jesus justify forcing someone to remain married to a spouse that :
Wanted her to abort their first child because it "wasnt convenient "
Committed adultery ( oh and had to get an HIV test)
Divorced her leaving her with sole parental responsibility
Has married and had a child with someone else!!!

Best laugh is he wasnt even a Catholic, yet in the eyes of my religion I must now live the life of a nun!
why is it that the Catholic church preaches forgiveness for murder, paedophilia in fact everything except divorce!!
 
why is it that the Catholic church preaches forgiveness for murder, paedophilia in fact everything except divorce!!
Why is it that Google exists but no one in the USA seems to be able to use it to learn the difference between legal divorce and a Catholic decree of nullity!?!!!

If a Catholic is legally divorced and they wish to be married again to someone else, they are required to let the Church investigate the situation to see if it is possible. This is what the diocesan tribunal does. They investigate and rule on the status of marriages. They do this for any Catholic. The funny thing is, lots of American Catholics think they are far too lenient and allow way too many people to seek another marriage. Heh. So, why not investigate the option?
 
All this philosophical chat is fine, but out here in the real world-would Jesus justify forcing someone to remain married to a spouse that :
Wanted her to abort their first child because it "wasnt convenient "
Committed adultery ( oh and had to get an HIV test)
Divorced her leaving her with sole parental responsibility
Has married and had a child with someone else!!!

Best laugh is he wasnt even a Catholic, yet in the eyes of my religion I must now live the life of a nun!
why is it that the Catholic church preaches forgiveness for murder, paedophilia in fact everything except divorce!!
The Church allows forgiveness of any repented sin. But repentance entails turning away from the sin, ceasing to commit it. In other words, it entails not being “married” to someone if one is indeed married to someone else.
 
In my Bible study class recently, the commandment about divorce and remarriage was discussed some in the Old Testament vs the New Testament meanings. I think back in Moses’ day, men wanted an easy way out of a marriage but women were not given such ease even if there was abuse as an example. When Jesus mentioned the old law then His words said that marriage is a death til you part, and remarriage for divorcees was sinful, I think it was his way of ensuring people understood the marriage covenant. God intended marriage to be a lifetime thing not til you tired of your wife because she didn’t do something you liked. Also, I think it made the burdens equal for both men & women to remain married.

One of my relatives had a legal separation for a few years then later chose to remarry civilly to be married again in the eyes of the law. But they knew in the eyes of God, they were still married no matter what the law had said. They did not date other people during that time of separation nor seek out another partner. The time of separation made them appreciate each other, and overlook the little things that drove them apart.
 
Interesting — I just did some early church fathers reading (Justin Martyr, John Chysostom, etc.) — They’re also consistent with the reading as pornea" (fornication).
A question: If two people are legitimately and truly married, how could either one be accused of fornication? Fornication is a sin committed only by UNmarried people. The correct name for the sin of unlawful sexual intercourse committed by a legitimately MARRIED person is adultery.

Thus, by applying modern definitions to old writings, we alter the meaning of the term. Modern people understand “fornication” to be merely sexual immorality, without consideration of the state of the marriage, and casually use the words fornication and adultery as synonyms. Ancient people understood “fornication” to be sexual relations between people who are not legitimately married, which is quite different from adultery.

Therefore, the consistent reading of the term as fornication - and NOT adultery - by the ECFs is perfectly correct. Once again, here’s the Douay-Rheims rendition, which is identical to the King James wording:
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
With that in mind, here’s how the NAB renders Mt 19:9 in modern day English:
“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Since Jesus uses both the terms “fornication” and “adultery” in the passage, we can be certain that there is a definite difference between the two words. If Jesus really meant, ‘whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another commits adultery,’ He would have said it that way.

By Judaic law there were prohibitions against certain marriage relationships, such as father-daughter, mother-son, and same-sex. Brother-sister marriage relationships such as between Abraham and Sarah were tolerated in early biblical times but later made unlawful. Anyone who was in such an unlawful marriage would be guilty of fornication, but not adultery. If such a marriage WAS contracted between these parties, a divorce decree would still be required to establish that the marriage contract was broken and the parties were free to marry someone else.
 
All this philosophical chat is fine, but out here in the real world-would Jesus justify forcing someone to remain married to a spouse that :
Wanted her to abort their first child because it "wasnt convenient "
Committed adultery ( oh and had to get an HIV test)
Divorced her leaving her with sole parental responsibility
Has married and had a child with someone else!!!

Best laugh is he wasnt even a Catholic, yet in the eyes of my religion I must now live the life of a nun!
why is it that the Catholic church preaches forgiveness for murder, paedophilia in fact everything except divorce!!
This is something you definitely need to discuss with a priest. It appears that a decree of nullity may be in order, which would make you free to marry a man who really loves you. You need to submit your case to the marriage tribunal.

If what you describe is true, then clearly the scumbag who married you never intended to be faithful nor make a true marriage. The church recognizes this. Sure, he went through a ceremony where he looked pure as the driven snow, but beneath the surface there was something else going on: lack of commitment, immaturity, or some other fatal impediment to making a real marriage.

You say he wasn’t Catholic, but you are. Were you married according to Catholic marriage laws, in the presence of a Catholic priest or Catholic deacon? If the answer to that is “no” then getting an annulment will be very simple and fast. Talk to your priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top