German bishops: most Catholics perceive Catholic teaching on divorce, remarriage as 'merciless' [CWN]

[Rence]

You’re reading too casually without digging into the nuances of translations. I don’t speak ancient Greek either (though I’m told it isn’t THAT hard: every 2 year old in ancient Athens could speak it!). But the exception noted is not unambiguously fornication or adultery, it is the Greek word “porneia.” (spelling from memory!) Perhaps you recognize the root word for pornography. From the context, it appears that Jesus is referring to an apparent marriage the very nature of which is unlawful or perverse. This could mean …"

I understand what you’re saying. But look at it from this perspective: The translation was done by the Church and provided to its followers as the only acceptable translation for Catholics. The douay translation is the translation that Catholics are supposed to go by and has been for years and years. One might not be too easily convinced that now Jesus’ Words were misconstrued. Again, the douay transation is the one Catholics are supposed to follow, and was provided by the Church in the first place. So again, I can understand a person who thinks the Church isn’t following Jesus’ teachings, and so don’t take the teachings seriously.

That explanation also fails to explain why only Matthew remembered to note the exception while Luke and Mark give only the utter prohibition on marriage. This difference constitutes an actual contradiction in Scripture unless Matthew is merely clarifying a nuance (porneia) which itself renders the marriage null. Mark and Luke apparently decided to just report the principle itself without muddying the waters with special cases.

The fact that only Mathew remembered to note the exception doesn’t in any way indicate a contradiction. It just means Mathew thought it important enough to note, while the other two did not. The scriptures are not identical in every way to begin with. So discounting the exception just because it isn’t mentioned in the other two would be reason to discount any other difference in the three accounts, which as far as I know, we don’t do.

 

[jilly4ski]

I understand what you’re saying. But look at it from this perspective: The translation was done by the Church and provided to its followers as the only acceptable translation for Catholics. The douay translation is the translation that Catholics are supposed to go by and has been for years and years. One might not be too easily convinced that now Jesus’ Words were misconstrued. Again, the douay transation is the one Catholics are supposed to follow, and was provided by the Church in the first place. So again, I can understand a person who thinks the Church isn’t following Jesus’ teachings, and so don’t take the teachings seriously.

The fact that only Mathew remembered to note the exception doesn’t in any way indicate a contradiction. It just means Mathew thought it important enough to note, while the other two did not. The scriptures are not identical in every way to begin with. So discounting the exception just because it isn’t mentioned in the other two would be reason to discount any other difference in the three accounts, which as far as I know, we don’t do.

And this is why Catholics are not to interpret the Bible without reference to the Church. First, I do believe that the New American Bible is the Bible that is approved for in Mass use, and the text, right from the USCCB is:

Mat 5:32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

usccb.org/bible/matthew/5
Thus, using unlawful, which is more in line with manualman’s post.

Second, if we look at how the sentence is structured (in English), and use any of the terms used in other translations, we can see that the phrase in parentheses, could be in reference to the previous clause. In which cause Matthew could be clarifying that divorce for an innocent spouse is still fine, but saying that remarriage is still forbidden.

Third, how does a man lawfully divorce his wife except for fornication? The literal interpretation of that phrase must be, if they got married and the man discovered his wife was not a virgin (since you cannot commit fornication once you are married). Are you suggesting that Jesus was saying it is fine to divorce your wife if she was not a virgin before getting married? I don’t believe that is what Jesus was actually saying or what Matthew was trying to convey.

 

[_Abyssinia]

VATICAN CITY (AP) — New surveys commissioned by the Vatican show that the vast majority of Catholics in Germany and Switzerland reject church teaching on contraception, sexual morality, gay unions and divorce, findings remarkable both in their similarity and in the fact that they were even publicized.

cnsnews.com/news/article/vatican-surveys-find-catholics-reject-sex-rules

 

[liturgyluver]

None of this should be a surprise considering that less than 1 in every 4 Catholic fulfils their Sunday obligation in the Western World (including the US).

At least the German and Swiss authorities have been brave enough to publish their data unlike the US Bishops:

*By contrast, U.S. dioceses haven’t reported the results of their surveys in any detail. Baltimore Archbishop William Lori wrote in a recent diocesan article that more than 4,000 people had responded to his survey, but provided scant information on what they said. He wrote that “the majority of Catholics who responded said they strive to practice their faith, but acknowledged the struggles and confusion they face in doing so.”

The archdiocese of Philadelphia, meanwhile, said it was following Vatican guidelines by not publishing the findings at all.

But if independent studies are any indication, American Catholics are likely to agree with their European counterparts at least on the issue of contraception. A 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics think the church should permit members to use birth control*

 

[ServusHumilis]

Well, I can proudly say I’m not part of the vast majority.

 

[SuzanneD]

Seems like this is one of many areas that Catholics pick and choose on. ( I consider myself Catholic) I don’t understand how you can be Catholic and not accept the authority of the church. I am gonna keep my eyes on Christ. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[CutlerB]

Hey! Finally some news from my country on CAF!

The Bishops’ report is very worrying, but that was to be expected. Everyone knew that apparently no one here cares much for “official Church teaching”. I’ve been discussing this with many people, and they are all of the same opinion: The Church must change her doctrine.

It should be noted that many of those who have heard of Natural Law think it’s “outdated”, or “erroneous”. Some take another bent on it and say “since man exerts influence on nature, Natural Law changes”. An absolute minority says “I stand with the Church”.

Individual Dioceses have also published detailed reports. Munich and Freising, the Archdiocese of Reinhard Cardinal Marx, has published every single response to every question (anonymously). They received more than 800 of them. I read many of the reports, and the trend is clear.

 

[Memaw]

Most Catholics in Germany have never heard of the term “natural law” and reject Catholic teaching on human sexuality, according to a report from the German Bishops’ Conference. The …

More…

Then I would think it’s time the Bishops and Pastors stand up and take responsibility for not doing their job strong enough. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

What you’re suggesting would mean annulments on demand, but with the added requirement that you must cheat on your spouse before you can get an annulment. Now that would be requiring people to jump through hoops.

Or maybe they would like the Church to do away with Her teaching on marriage, family and fidility altogether. If we can’t see what harm that way of thinking and acting has done to all society already then we must be like the blind man falling into the ditch. The Catholic Church will always teach the Truth of Jesus Christ as long as man exists on this earth.In other words, until the end of time. As Jesus promised!!!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[kelvinf]

LOL, perhaps there is some blame to pass around on why most Catholics in Germany have never heard the term “Natural Law.”

Well, this is a disappointment…anybody else ever suffer through Kant or Hegel? Now you tell me your average German Catholic can’t even define what natural law is? Doesn’t seem fair somehow. I bet those German Bishops know their Kant - inside and out, backwards and forwards…just hope he’s not deeper in their hearts and minds than Church teaching…

I was initially in disbelieve when going through the full report re certain things. In fact, some things were just laughable. For me, all this points to the problem with the way people are catechised in the Catholic Church. People learn the doctrine at ages 6 - 11 (before confirmation) or so and that’s it. No one gets to teach such young catechumens about natural law, cohabitation, Humanae Vitae (birth controls…) annulments etc. This is certainly not a German issue! although the report indeed points to other issues I believe might be peculiar to the German society like the relationship between parents and their children:

Parents today make considerable efforts not to force children into anything, particularly with regard to religion. Conflicts are rather avoided than acted out in this area. What is more, parents themselves feel insecure when it comes to religious topics, so that they are frequently speechless when it comes to transmitting the faith, and delegate this topic to institutions such as kindergarten, the local church and school, even though they consider it to be important.

A devout Catholic in Africa or Latin America would likely never have heard of natural law or Humanae Vitae either, I believe. Personally, I learnt most of these things on this forum.

I wish they would have asked how many people have heard about the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have read it from cover to cover.

 

[CutlerB]

I was initially in disbelieve when going through the full report re certain things. In fact, some things were just laughable. For me, all this points to the problem with the way people are catechised in the Catholic Church. People learn the doctrine at ages 6 - 11 (before confirmation) or so and that’s it. No one gets to teach such young catechumens about natural law, cohabitation, Humanae Vitae (birth controls…) annulments etc. This is certainly not a German issue! although the report indeed points to other issues I believe might be peculiar to the German society like the relationship between parents and their children:

Parents today make considerable efforts not to force children into anything, particularly with regard to religion. Conflicts are rather avoided than acted out in this area. What is more, parents themselves feel insecure when it comes to religious topics, so that they are frequently speechless when it comes to transmitting the faith, and delegate this topic to institutions such as kindergarten, the local church and school, even though they consider it to be important.

A devout Catholic in Africa or Latin America would likely never have heard of natural law or Humanae Vitae either, I believe. Personally, I learnt most of these things on this forum.

I wished they would have asked how many people have heard about the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have read it from cover to cover.

The quote in your signature applies to this matter quite well: “Wer mit dem Katholizismus nicht einverstanden ist, der soll protestantisch oder atheistisch werden, aber nicht versuchen, ihn durch Reformen zu verunstalten” P. Feyerabend

 

[kelvinf]

The quote in your signature applies to this matter quite well: “Wer mit dem Katholizismus nicht einverstanden ist, der soll protestantisch oder atheistisch werden, aber nicht versuchen, ihn durch Reformen zu verunstalten” P. Feyerabend

Indeed, there are too many protestants within the Catholic Church.

BTW, welcome to the Catholic Church, I noticed the change of your Religion.

 

[CutlerB]

Indeed, there are too many protestants within the Catholic Church.

BTW, welcome to the Catholic Church, I noticed the change of your Religion.

Thanks, I am somewhat alone out here in the north of Germany.

 

[manualman]

I understand what you’re saying. But look at it from this perspective: The translation was done by the Church and provided to its followers as the only acceptable translation for Catholics. The douay translation is the translation that Catholics are supposed to go by and has been for years and years. One might not be too easily convinced that now Jesus’ Words were misconstrued. Again, the douay transation is the one Catholics are supposed to follow, and was provided by the Church in the first place. So again, I can understand a person who thinks the Church isn’t following Jesus’ teachings, and so don’t take the teachings seriously.

The fact that only Mathew remembered to note the exception doesn’t in any way indicate a contradiction. It just means Mathew thought it important enough to note, while the other two did not. The scriptures are not identical in every way to begin with. So discounting the exception just because it isn’t mentioned in the other two would be reason to discount any other difference in the three accounts, which as far as I know, we don’t do.

1. Your first paragraph is a pretty darn good explanation for why the church never claims to have an infallible charism for translation. The Douay is a defensible literal translation, but doesn’t survive a more wholistic contextual analysis, which is why it is translated differently in later catholic versions. But catholics ought to know better than to trust their own reading of a translated text over the long term consistent, informed, authoritative interpretation of the church. That’s kind of the dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism, no?
2. One of the challenges of reporting an event is to summarize the crux of the message without having to list verbatim every word. If the message of Christ was that ALL genuine marriages are indissoluble, then Luke and Mark made a reasonable and valid decision to summarize the teaching while Matthew chose instead to list an example of an impediment (porneia) that would have prevented the marriage from ever really happening at all.

But if the message of Christ was that marriage is indissoluble unless one spouse commits adultery, then Luke and Mark fundamentally reported the message WRONG. There’s a huge difference between account differences that support each other like eye witness reports usually do and account differences that convey a fundamentally different message! I find it hard to believe that Mark and Luke would have so badly blown the message that way. Think about how profoundly different those accounts are! It only makes sense if Matthew is recounting NOT a circumstance of acceptable divorce, but an impediment that prevented the marriage from ever happening. That interpretation makes the whole thing a sidebar to the main teaching and makes it comprehensible why Luke and Mark would omit it.

It’s important to remember that Jesus said that whom GOD has joined let no man tear apart. He didn’t say that a white dress, some vows, a ring and a big party had joined them. I think the church has had an inspired insight to understand that Matthew was citing an example of an impediment to marriage and the church later grew to understand that there are other such impediments which may have prevented a couple from ever truly having been joined by God (in spite of external appearances).

 

[TCEL]

But if the message of Christ was that marriage is indissoluble unless one spouse commits adultery, then Luke and Mark fundamentally reported the message WRONG. There’s a huge difference between account differences that support each other like eye witness reports usually do and account differences that convey a fundamentally different message! I find it hard to believe that Mark and Luke would have so badly blown the message that way. Think about how profoundly different those accounts are! It only makes sense if Matthew is recounting NOT a circumstance of acceptable divorce, but an impediment that prevented the marriage from ever happening. That interpretation makes the whole thing a sidebar to the main teaching and makes it comprehensible why Luke and Mark would omit it.

I think this is a really good point. Maybe this phrase is due to Matthew’s audience being Jewish, and their innate concern for matters of the law? And at the time, as has been raised I think, there was a lot of squabbling over what constituted legitimate grounds for divorce. By those standards, what He was saying was really strict. Jesus is basically saying it was never God’s plan. And the context immediately following has his disciples saying “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” (Matt 19:10)

 

[Brendan]

Well, my douay quotes Jesus as saying:

And I checked online to see if there was another douay translation, and found this one:

So I can understand why people in general do not take the strict, and perceived merciless, teachings of the Church regarding marriage and remarriage seriously. One can open up their Bible and see what Jesus said about adultery and the exception given to divorce an adulterer, and see that the Church’s teachings aren’t what Jesus actually said. .

Jesus stated that a person may divorce their spouse in the case of adultery, but that does not mean that they themselves are also free to remarry.

Divorce does not equal the ability to remarry.

 

[FormerXCatholic]

I find it funny and quite revealing that nobody on this thread agrees with these so called findings.

There are way too many unconvinced protestantesque people in the church. In my view if you don’t agree with the church straight down the line, then by definition your not Catholic, period.

Did anyone see that controversial Sprite commercial from Germany? It’s disgusting reveals the mentality of Germans.

 

[HouseArrest]

“Most Catholics in Germany have never heard of the term “natural law” and reject Catholic teaching on human sexuality, according to a report from the German Bishops’ Conference. The …”

Most students in Germany have never had a science class and reject the idea that horses have four legs, according to a report from the primary school teacher’s union…

 

[CutlerB]

I find it funny and quite revealing that nobody on this thread agrees with these so called findings.

There are way too many unconvinced protestantesque people in the church. In my view if you don’t agree with the church straight down the line, then by definition your not Catholic, period.

Did anyone see that controversial Sprite commercial from Germany? It’s disgusting reveals the mentality of Germans.

I am German, and I do not remember that commercial.

 

[commenter]

Surveys show a huge percentage of high school students don’t know what decade - or what century - the Civil War or Great Depression happened in. This does not disprove the value of teaching history.

I suspect most Catholics have never heard of the concept of “dying to self” either. Most of us have never heard of “conversion” except maybe someone who switches denominations; most of us have never heard the term “renewal” except maybe someone who goes to a seminar where they become more open minded about religion, family, and everything else. The fact that most Germans (and Americans) are ignorant of whatever the media chooses to ignore does not disprove the truth of the doctrines they are ignorant of.