Divorce

[Melchior]

I am sure this has been addressed a million times before.

Is divorce for adultery approved by the Catholic Church? It seems Jesus makes an exception for this.

So is a man or a woman required to remain married to a spouse who is an unrepentant covenant breaker? If so how does this jibe with what Jesus said?

Thanks,

Mel

 

[Della]

Would you mind my asking if your questions are hypothetical or do you have a real life situation in mind?

You see, if it’s just hypothetical, the debate might never end because new hypothetical situations can be thought of as the discussion goes along, which I think would be a waste of everyone’s time.

But, of course, the answer to your general questions are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try doing a search to see if your questions are answered satisfactorily. Not that I have any say in what is discussed and how on the board, but you might find a better answer in the CCC than we could give you here.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Melchior:

Is divorce for adultery approved by the Catholic Church?

No. Marriage is a sacrament and therefore can not be dissolved.

Melchior:

So is a man or a woman required to remain married to a spouse who is an unrepentant covenant breaker?

Yes, for the same reason stated above.

Jesus said that nothing that God has joined together, no human being must separate:
Mark 10:2-12:

The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Melchior:

If so how does this jibe with what Jesus said?

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was referring to marriages that were not valid to begin with. In other words, the marriage never took place in the eyes of God.

 

[Melchior]

Della:

Would you mind my asking if your questions are hypothetical or do you have a real life situation in mind?

You see, if it’s just hypothetical, the debate might never end because new hypothetical situations can be thought of as the discussion goes along, which I think would be a waste of everyone’s time.

But, of course, the answer to your general questions are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try doing a search to see if your questions are answered satisfactorily. Not that I have any say in what is discussed and how on the board, but you might find a better answer in the CCC than we could give you here.

Thankfully, hypothetical. I am blessed with a wonderful wife.

But as I think of it I do have a recently divorced friend (last year or so) whose husband turned out to be living a secretly adulterous life and was completely unrepentent. She went to therapy with him and gave him every chance to save the marriage. It was clear he did not want to. She is a young woman in her late 20’s with two little boys. She is a devout christian. Worst off I introduced her to this piece of work (beside the point). She has no interest in remarrying at this time. She is too wounded.

But where is her guilt if she does marry so her boys can have a father in their life. She did not want divorce or seek it out. She was a victim in the most obvious way. She walked in on him with her 2 year old in her arms (she was 6 months pregnant at the time and went into labor two weeks later from the stress. The baby survived (barely) and he is now healthy. But she is now alone and abandoned. What does the church say to her?

Would I be correct to assume that her civil divorce would be allowed if she were Catholic but not her remarriage unless the church granted an annulment? Seems likely given the circumstances.

I am simply curious. This does not effect her since she was never a Catholic. But it is a real life “hypothetical”.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

Stylteralmaldo:

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was referring to marriages that were not valid to begin with. In other words, the marriage never took place in the eyes of God.

*Matthew 19:9 *

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

So how does this work if you have been married thirty years. Have kids and grandkids and someone cheats? They were never married. This does not seem to jibe with Jesus words, since he was talking about real marriage and divorce. You cannot divorce your wife if she is not your wife in the first place. He never even suggest that the marriage was not real. He was clearly talking about an exception to the rule. Could you address tis specifically? Thanks.

Mel

 

[Tom]

Melchior:

I do have a recently divorced friend (last year or so) whose husband turned out to be living a secretly adulterous life and was completely unrepentent. She went to therapy with him and gave him every chance to save the marriage. It was clear he did not want to. She is a young woman in her late 20’s with two little boys. She is a devout christian.

Divorce is a civil matter, not a subject under the Church’s authority. The Church recognizes a marriage as valid unless the parties can prove a valid marriage never took place. Divorce is the dissolution of a civil contract; annulment is the finding that a valid marriage never took place. Two very different things. Adultery is one of the main reasons annulment is recognized.

Melchior:

But where is her guilt if she does marry so her boys can have a father in their life.

Her guilt would be if she did not have her marriage annulled she would still be married in the eyes of God. She would be committing adultery herself. Getting an annulment in her circumstances would not be an impossible task. My question is why wouldn’t she?

Melchior:

She did not want divorce or seek it out.

Again a divorce is not an annulment.

Melchior:

What does the church say to her?

The Church seeks her out to embrace her. If she does not seek an annulment it is not God pushing her away, it’s her refusing God.

Melchior:

Would I be correct to assume that her civil divorce would be allowed if she were Catholic but not her remarriage unless the church granted an annulment?

Once again the Church doesn’t allow or disallow civil divorce. If she did not receive an annulment her first marriage would still be valid and could not remarry.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Melchior:

This does not seem to jibe with Jesus words, since he was talking about married people. He was clearly talking about an exception to the rule. Could you address this specifically? Thanks.
Mel

Here’s a link I think that would be helpful to explaining a bit what Jesus meant:
chastitysf.guidetopsychology.com/q_divorce.htm

**
Q&A:

Well, one passage of Matthew (5:32) speaks about an “unlawful” marriage as grounds for divorce. At least, this is what a faithful translation of the Greek says. A scholarly understanding of this text reveals that Matthew was writing to a Christian community within a pagan Greek setting. And if you know anything about Greek paganism you know that it was characterized by all sorts of immorality, including incest. So what was the Christian community to do when someone who was married, say, to his step-mother or sister, wanted to convert? Well, he had to divorce his “wife” because the marriage, according to Christian morality, was unlawful in the first place.

**

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

*Matthew 19:9 *

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

…He was clearly talking about an exception to the rule. Could you address tis specifically? Thanks.

Mel

My translation reads a little different:
Matthew 19:9:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Here’s a link on the Greek word “porneia”:

I think this might help explain the apparent contradiction between the Bible reference I referred to (what God has joined-no human shall separate) and the “exception clause” you are referring to:

members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html

 

[steve_b]

Stylteralmaldo:

My translation reads a little different:

Here’s a link on the Greek word “porneia”:

I think this might help explain the apparent contradiction between the Bible reference I referred to (what God has joined-no human shall separate) and the “exception clause” you are referring to:

members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html

Jesus provides what looks like an overly simplistic escape clause for divorce and remarriage, when He says “divorce and remarriage comits adultry except for porneia (unchastity, fornication, adultry)”

Well when “scripturally”, all one has to do to get out of their marriage is to go out an commit adultry and tell your spouse, and presto, a divorce can be issued, and both are free to go their ways and remarry, something is wrong with that translation in my opinion. Somehow, I think Jesus didn’t say what people think He said there…

The apostles validate that suspicion when they said to Jesus, if that is the case, it’s better not to marry in the first place [Mt 19:10] Thy clearly didn’t see a simplistic escape clause like adultry. That’s why I don’t think porneia means adultry, fornication, etc. It’s gotta be something else. It would be too easy for a crum bum, to dissolve his/her marriage.

As I understand this, “unlawful” for porneia, makes sense. If for example, someone lied while taking their vows, and they admitted it, then a sacrament didn’t take place at the time of exchanging vows. Marriage is two people giving vows (the sacrament) to each other, in the presence of God. If one says empty words with no intention of believing what is being said then, from societies point of view, a civil marriage took place from the legal aspect, but a sacrament didn’t take place. A covenant didn’t take place. And therfore in the sight of God, and the Church, an annulment is possible, and therfore remarriage, because God didn’t join this couple in a sacramental marriage…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think, Melchior, that what is boils down to is that ANNULMENT, not divorce, can be sought in this woman’s case. The argument would be that, at the time the marriage took place, the husband would not have been able to give valid consent to the marriage. While not an ex propter hox, it seems probable, though not certain, that the husband at the time of the marriage did NOT intend for this to BE a sacramental marriage, and the later RESULT was that he chose to engage in adultery and to seek a divorce.

(Right now my annulment is before the tribunal–my husband likewise engaged in adultery as well as some other matters too heinous and private to discuss on an open message board–and the petition for cause does rest on whether or not one or both parties was ABLE to give valid consent to the marriage at the time the marriage took place.)

So I hoping that both I–and your friend–will be able to get annulments. This will have NO effect on either her or my children, BTW. And I’m not planning marriage, or even dating, as I still consider myself married, despite the divorce and annulment petition, until and unless the Church herself says otherwise.

And don’t forget to tell your friend that she MAY receive communion despite the divorce! I was miserable for nearly a year thinking that I could NOT receive, until I moved and the priest at my current parish informed me otherwise. It isn’t the DIVORCE that would bar an INNOCENT person like the victim of an adulterer, but being the adulterer or engaging in mortal sin. Innocent victims of divorce aren’t in sin.

Best wishes to you, and I’m glad your friend has a caring friend like you.

 

[Melchior]

Tantum ergo:

I think, Melchior, that what is boils down to is that ANNULMENT, not divorce, can be sought in this woman’s case. The argument would be that, at the time the marriage took place, the husband would not have been able to give valid consent to the marriage. While not an ex propter hox, it seems probable, though not certain, that the husband at the time of the marriage did NOT intend for this to BE a sacramental marriage, and the later RESULT was that he chose to engage in adultery and to seek a divorce.

(Right now my annulment is before the tribunal–my husband likewise engaged in adultery as well as some other matters too heinous and private to discuss on an open message board–and the petition for cause does rest on whether or not one or both parties was ABLE to give valid consent to the marriage at the time the marriage took place.)

So I hoping that both I–and your friend–will be able to get annulments. This will have NO effect on either her or my children, BTW. And I’m not planning marriage, or even dating, as I still consider myself married, despite the divorce and annulment petition, until and unless the Church herself says otherwise.

And don’t forget to tell your friend that she MAY receive communion despite the divorce! I was miserable for nearly a year thinking that I could NOT receive, until I moved and the priest at my current parish informed me otherwise. It isn’t the DIVORCE that would bar an INNOCENT person like the victim of an adulterer, but being the adulterer or engaging in mortal sin. Innocent victims of divorce aren’t in sin.

Best wishes to you, and I’m glad your friend has a caring friend like you.

Thanks, Tantum.

You will be in my prayers. I am heart broken to hear what has been done to you. I pray the church will move quickly and that the God of all peace will bless you beyond measure as you move on in your life.

Mel