Is It Lawful for A Man to Divorce His Wife for ANY REASONS?( MAT19::3)

[francisca]

THE NEW COMMANDMENT Jesus gave was “LOVE one another as I have LOVED you”. Jesus love for The Church is compared to husbands love for his wife accourding to St. Paul (Eph 5:25)

EPHESIANS 5:25 Husbands, love your wife as Christ have loved the Church, and gave himself for her.

In the beginning there was no marriage law at the time of Adam and Eve. They did not have any marriage certificate, no wedding party, no documents. yet according to Jesus, Adam and Eve are husband and wife. Man’s faithful love for his wife is marriage, just as God’s love for us. In the beginning marriage was not a piece of “a lawful decree”. Law was not needed to regulate Faithful Love

Now we need to have marriage documents to prove our marriage is LAWFUL, and the reason for this, is because we have to deal with OFFENCES within marriage.
And these offences are the reason why the church need a set of law to regulate whether a marriage is still a marriage. and whether past adultery can be forgiven.

1. Jesus said that Moses allow men to “issue certificate of dismissal for his wife”, and the reason for this-- according to Jesus own words:"-- was because “men harden their hearts”.
2. In real life, in abuse cases, where men abuse their wife, these men have hardened their hearts. Men who harden their hearts toward their wife-- these men, they-- can’t love anymore.
3. In above cases, doctrinally, marriage can’t exist without man’s love, just as no church can exist without God’s love
   In cases of Adultery:
4. Our God is a “jealous God” who refuse to forgive idolatry. Idolatry in many places of the scriptures is seen as “spiritual adultery”.
5. Jesus also mention explicitly that adultery is a valid reason for a man to divorce his wife.
6. If God Himself can’t forgive adultery, then it is not human to insist on “insolubility of marriage” position, because doctrinally such is not biblical, rather it was a position being taken by our church fathers to protect marriages in their times
7. Nowadays, such position do not benefit the church, because of it, the church has no divorce law to combat offences within marriage.

Somebody close to me was in abuse marriage. She ran from her husband, leaving her children behind. It was more than 10years ago. The husband refuse to divorce her until today, so he doesn’t need to divide his assets and pay her alimony. She was too fearful of him, and also have too little resources to face her husband’s lawyers that she decide just to receive very little “pocket money” from her very-well-off husband. She’s now living with her aunt. I find it very unfair that the guilty party get the control of the education of the children simply because he has all the resources, and she just can’t fight back.

As a lay person, I also know that men who are adulterous also look down on their wife. In most cases in which the the wifeis a housewife, these wives, they feel “obligated to save the marriage”, “besides, such is the teaching of the church”. In these typical cases, the men do not have any respect for the wife, and yet, these wives, they just continue to receive whatever humiliation they can ignore “until they can’t stand it anymore” for the sake of the marriage. Children of these marriages-- boys and girls-- will learn that money and muscle is power, men can be oppressive towards women, and women must “know their place”. Boys will learn that it’s normal to disrespect a woman/ a girl, and girls will learn that men only respect them while they are beautiful and sexy-- apart from that-- they have no other value, so they learn to “know their place”.

Btw, In many places of the scriptures, God insists that “widows” and “orphans” receive just treatment.

 

[JerryZ]

However you left out these passages:

I Corinthians Chapter 7

7:10 But to those who have been joined in matrimony,** it is not I who commands you, but the Lord:** a wife is not to separate from her husband.
7:11 But if she has separated from him, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband should not divorce his wife.

And the Church recognizes that sometimes it is wise to separate if physical abuse is taking place. However unless it can be proven that the marriage was not real to begin with, the Church cannot change Jesus teaching.

The only thing that the Church can do is investigate if the marriage was sacramental or not. Many times we find that people lie when they make their vows in front of GOD.
Like a groom whom is having an affair at the same time he is getting married.
One of the parties insisting in signing a separation of assets (pre-nuptial agreement) is a the facto ground for annulment (Marriage was void and null) as the party wanting to sign that document is implicitly stating he/she does not consider marriage to be “Until death us part”.
Hope this helps you understand the Church teaching on marriage and why she CANNOT allow “divorce”

.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

The word “lawful” in Scripture generally refers to that which is permitted by God or authority which is allowed to be exercised by God. As such it does not require human courts or documents to be exercised, for when God permits anything to his free-will agents, angelic or human, their exercise of their freedom within these boundaries is automatically considered “lawful.”

By this definition the first marriage was a lawful one. God arranged it and permitted the union, and Adam and Eve freely accepted the arrangement. All this fits the description of “lawful” as used in the Bible.

However, Jesus did not say “adultery” wa sufficient ground for dissolution of a marriage. In fact he taught that no marriage union could be dissolved except for those which were “unlawful” or contrary to the Mosaic Law to begin with. (See Maathew 5.32 and Acts 15.29 in the NAB.) These types of forbidden unions involved marriages that were forbidden due to close ties of a sanguary nature or where a union was created that was considered unlawful in the current cultural circumstances (such as a union with those who were against the worship of the true God).

The ‘certificates of divorce’ mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5 are not meant to legitimize divorce but to mention a time when God allowed such behavior in expectation of the Mesianic age when marriage would be returned to its proper state under Christ. A dissolution of a marriage union can only occur if the marriage was not legitimate in the first place.

At times the way one of the partners may treat the other, such as physical abuse, can be a sign that one of the partners did not truly understand all that was involved in agreeing to be a part of a legitimate marriage. Under investigation some of these unions have been declared annulled, that no true sacramental or licit union occurred in the first place. However one cannot apply this to all circumstances.

Questions like yours are best brought to a priest or other proper Church authority that deals with the question of annulments in your diocese. Hypothetical questions can have their place in learning how the Church applies the Gospel in such cases, but it would be best to consider balance as there are actual situations where domestic violence are placing people in real danger. Caring for these people in practical ways should be our first concern over merely satisfying our curiosity, and legitimate searches for answers should be used to aid those among us in similar difficult situations.

 

[francisca]

However you left out these passages:

I Corinthians Chapter 7

7:10 But to those who have been joined in matrimony,** it is not I who commands you, but the Lord:** a wife is not to separate from her husband.
7:11 But if she has separated from him, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband should not divorce his wife.

And the Church recognizes that sometimes it is wise to separate if physical abuse is taking place.

basically you are saying *“the bible say do not do this, but we are permitted to do so if physical abuse takes place.” Is this the practice of Mercy? Or rather a discontinuity of doctrine…

The bigger question to ask is this:
Can Mercy be administered without adopting the Commandment into the said doctrin first? I mean, if you do not allow something, and then you also allow it in practice, isn’t such is a discontinuity of doctrine?

I am saying, firstly the church need to recognize there are VALID reasons to divorce in the bible (at doctrinal level), otherwise how can the church administer mercy to those who have failed their marriages **without confusing the people at doctrinal level. ** If you only administer “exeptions” (example above), such is not really about mercy, rather it’s about protecting a doctrine that can’t protect people.

However unless it can be proven that the marriage was not real to begin with, the Church cannot change Jesus teaching.

Not all marriage can be annulled. Besides,
If I were a child of failed marriage, I would prefer my parents to get divorce than to be declared a-child-of -non-valid-marriage (annulled marriage).

The only thing that the Church can do is investigate if the marriage was sacramental or not. Many times we find that people lie when they make their vows in front of GOD.

But how about those who didn’t lie, but really become victim of spouses who really commited offences? How about the education of the children in such marriages?
How does the church reach out to these? Do we let them live in condemnation forever, as if the Lord has not die for them?

Like a groom whom is having an affair at the same time he is getting married.

Remarriage is clearly defined as adultery. No question about this.

The question is more about what happen if the righteous spouse is the one want to divorce the offender spouse, because he/ she can’t stand it anymore? Is there valid reasons in which the church should allow such divorce? Is it biblical (at the doctrinal level)? How to apply it in practice?

In my opinion, the church should define AT DOCTRINAL LEVEL (not only in practice) that there are VALID & Biblical REASONS in which divorce requested by the righteous party should be allowed. And then, at the practical level, it should be made clear which party commit the offence, and which party receive mercy in such divorce case. Only then, the church can begin to also administer mercy to the “ex-offender” after they live for a significant number of years (proven repentant behavior) in chastity and/or committed to their new spouse and no longer being adulterous anymore. Thus pardoning past adulterous behavior.

The church must convict the offender, and show mercy to the righteous spouse. Then the church in time can reach-out and show mercy to ex-offenders after they show proven repentant behavior.

Example:2Samuel 11 - 2Samuel 12
Read the story about King David who committed adultery with Bathsheba. He was convicted by God through Prophet Nathan. After King David repented, mercy was shown to him-- and then, in God’s time-- King Solomon, who was the child of King David & Bathsheba was born, chosen and loved by God (2Samuel 12:1-24).

 

[francisca]

The ‘certificates of divorce’ mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5 are not meant to legitimize divorce but to mention a time when God allowed such behavior in expectation of the Mesianic age when marriage would be returned to its proper state under Christ. A dissolution of a marriage union can only occur if the marriage was not legitimate in the first place.

The words in Mattheew19 “men harden their hearts” and “except in case of immoral/unlawful union”-- these words were not Moses words. Those are Jesus chosen words to explain lawful/unlawful divorce according to Moses Law.

At times the way one of the partners may treat the other, such as physical abuse, can be a sign that one of the partners did not truly understand all that was involved in agreeing to be a part of a legitimate marriage. Under investigation some of these unions have been declared annulled, that no true sacramental or licit union occurred in the first place. However one cannot apply this to all circumstances.

Questions like yours are best brought to a priest or other proper Church authority that deals with the question of annulments in your diocese. Hypothetical questions can have their place in learning how the Church applies the Gospel in such cases, but it would be best to consider balance as there are actual situations where domestic violence are placing people in real danger. Caring for these people in practical ways should be our first concern over merely satisfying our curiosity, and legitimate searches for answers should be used to aid those among us in similar difficult situations.

A good doctrine should focus on the people, and not otherwise.

I would argue that dissolubility of marriage is true so long there is still faithful love in it…
example:

1. A person who say “I am not happy in my marriage”, he has non-valid (unlawful) reason to divorce, because marriage is “for better or worse”. Thus he has to find a way to work together with his wife to improve themselves and their situation within the marriage. He is not permitted to divorce his wife to marry another in order to find happiness outside his legitimate marriage.
2. Couples who argue about trivial matters are not to divorce. The reason for this is because NOBODY IS PERFECT. Thus a person should not demand his/ her spouse to be perfect in order to love him/ her. This is also not a reason to be unhappy within marriage neither to seek divorce.
3. However, sacrament of matrimony is given by the couple to each other, and so marriage vow is about faithful love to one another. If a vow is broken, there isn’t power to bind the couple anymore, or rather no longer an obligation for the righteous party to continue to fulfill the vow while the other party breaking it.
4. Unless the righteous party choose to continue trying to save the marriage, then the marriage is dissolved.
   Ofcourse in the case the spouse of Israel who is the Faithful God (the righteous party) who choose to continue to save Israel, despite her many offences, we are human aren’t supposedly being imposed on such a hard teaching on. Not everybody can take such a hard teaching, especially in abuse/ adultery cases. It is God’s mercy to forgive our unability to save ourselves, therefore God saves us. Thus it should be allowed if the vow has been broken, then the righteous party should be allowed to choose not to continue the marriage, unless he/ she choose otherwise. The last one is called grace/ mercy. Grace/ mercy can’t be forced. It has to come from freewill. Like God out of His freewill save us. We can’t demand the righteous party in a broken marriage to suffer beyond human measure. If they are called to it then fine. If not, they should not be demanded to sacrifice their life and their children’s life, because Jesus sacrifice is sufficient for all of us.

A good doctrine should focus in people salvation, and not asking them to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the said doctrine. The last one is false intepretation of what God intend to do for us when He sacrifice His only begotten Son to save us and not to condemn us.

 

[JerryZ]

I think that you are not getting it. The Jews practised divorce.

Jesus rebuked the Jews and told them that once a couple was married there was nothing that could be done about it. Unless the marriage was invalid in the first place.

The Church upholds these principles as outlined by the Tradition handed out since the Apostles. Now what your personal beliefs are on the subject hold no sway to what is truth. The Church cannot change what is true.
No matter how many people are uncomfortable with it.
A marriage validity can come in question not because one or both the spouses decided to cheat on each other. Rather did the conditions that require for a valid marriage to occur were observed?
The Church can recognize that a marriage did not take place if some condition required for it to be valid was not present. Hence the word the Church uses “annulment” declares precisely that, the presumed marriage was not valid. What she cannot do is declare Jesus a liar and condone what the pharisees were doing back in His days on earth.

…

 

[francisca]

I think that you are not getting it. The Jews practised divorce.

Jesus rebuked the Jews and told them that once a couple was married there was nothing that could be done about it.

Jesus gave exception for adultery. Besides Jesus Himself said He didn’t come to abolish the law of Moses.

If the church can’t recognize divorce, the church will not be able to reach out to remarried couples, thus condemn them forever. If suddenly “mercy” bestowed on them, without any divorce law, then it will be like the church allow adultery so long it works.

Besides if you witness your colleagues commit adultery, will you tell their wives? No, because if they get divorce you will feel like you’ve done something wrong, because the church teach that divorce is wrong.
So then people think that commiting adultery is no big deal, so long you don’t get caught, because there is no consequence for commiting adultery permitted by the church. It will be even better if you can get your spouse agree on “open” marriage: your spouse agree to it, so there is no betrayal and you get to keep your marriage, despite continuous adultery, just in full compliance to church teaching. Wives nowadays agree to watch porn together with husband, because they know that there isn’t any better alternative!

Unless the marriage was invalid in the first place

Annulment is not the same as Divorce. It’s impossible to declare a valid marriage become non-valid one because of offences in the said marriage. Annulment is out of this topic.

 

[JerryZ]

Jesus gave exception for adultery. Besides Jesus Himself said He didn’t come to abolish the law of Moses.

If the church can’t recognize divorce, the church will not be able to reach out to remarried couples, thus condemn them forever. If suddenly “mercy” bestowed on them, without any divorce law, then it will be like the church allow adultery so long it works.

Besides if you witness your colleagues commit adultery, will you tell their wives? No, because if they get divorce you will feel like you’ve done something wrong, because the church teach that divorce is wrong.
So then people think that commiting adultery is no big deal, so long you don’t get caught, because there is no consequence for commiting adultery permitted by the church. It will be even better if you can get your spouse agree on “open” marriage: your spouse agree to it, so there is no betrayal and you get to keep your marriage, despite continuous adultery, just in full compliance to church teaching. Wives nowadays agree to watch porn together with husband, because they know that there isn’t any better alternative!

Annulment is not the same as Divorce. It’s impossible to declare a valid marriage become non-valid one because of offences in the said marriage. Annulment is out of this topic.

NO Jesus did not allow divorce for adultery, see my comments below, and He did not abolish the (LAW) 10 Commandments. But HE broke many of the (laws) like picking food on the Sabbath, eating without washing first, declaring impure NOT what you eat but what comes out of your heart and on and on.

Ohh and you are not getting it. An annulment cannot declare a valid marriage invalid!

No offense commited after you are validly married grants an annulment.
And to reiterate if it was valid…No annulment is possible.

Divorce IS impossible. The only clause specified by Jesus is an Unlawful marriage. Common in the time of Jesus.
Remember St John the Baptist was put to death because he denounced the unlawful marriage of Herod the king with Herodia his brother’s wife.

St Paul is VERY clear on this:
I Corinthians Chapter 7:10
But to those who have been joined in matrimony, it is not I who commands you, but the Lord: a wife is not to separate from her husband. 11 But if she has separated from him, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband should not divorce his wife.

Fornication is a mortal sin! Open ended marriage? what is the difference with fornication?
Adultery IS fornication!. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage === fornication

The sexual act is only acceptable when it is done within what GOD plan for it was: Marriage!
People jump into marriage now days as a sort of free pass card to have sex. Then after the novelty wears out. Get divorced and off we go looking for greener pastures.

Marriage instead is a vocation, just as religious life is a vocation, one has to take the time to discern: is this what I want to do for the rest of my life?
If the answer is NO…run, do not make the commitment unless you are 100% sure you can overcome the obstacles married life pose.
When people do not properly discern, then the Church has to step in and determine; was this marriage valid? Can an annulment be granted?
With all the problems that this entails.

…

 

[Duane1966]

Jesus gave exception for adultery. Besides Jesus Himself said He didn’t come to abolish the law of Moses.

Wrong. Jesus does not give exception for adultery. If the writer had wanted to give an exception for adultery, he would have used the Greek word moicheia, which specifically means adultery.

From Matthew 19:

9e*I say to you,**whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

What part of adultery makes the marriage unlawful?

If the church can’t recognize divorce, the church will not be able to reach out to remarried couples, thus condemn them forever.

Horrible reasoning. The Church also considers abortion a grave sin. Using your logic, since the Church considers abortion a grave sin, the Church cannot reach out to anyone that has had an abortion. I also take exception to you saying the Church condemns the divorced and remarried. The Church objectively says that based on Christ’s teacing, the divorced and remarried are committing adultery.

So then people think that commiting adultery is no big deal, so long you don’t get caught, because there is no consequence for commiting adultery permitted by the church. It will be even better if you can get your spouse agree on “open” marriage: your spouse agree to it, so there is no betrayal and you get to keep your marriage, despite continuous adultery, just in full compliance to church teaching. Wives nowadays agree to watch porn together with husband, because they know that there isn’t any better alternative!

Did you say no consequences? All the examples you have just given are considered mortal sins by the Church. And the consequences of mortal sin, if you die in an unrepentant state, is hell.

I would argue that dissolubility of marriage is true so long there is still faithful love in it…

Who determines what Is faithful love?

example:1) A person who say “I am not happy in my marriage”, he has non-valid (unlawful) reason to divorce, because marriage is “for better or worse”. Thus he has to find a way to work together with his wife to improve themselves and their situation within the marriage. He is not permitted to divorce his wife to marry another in order to find happiness outside his legitimate marriage.

So you have determined that this does not go outside the worse category. So you are now the judge. That is good to know.

1. Couples while argue about trivial matters are not to divorce. The reason for this is because NOBODY IS PERFECT. Thus a person should not demand his/ her spouse to be perfect in order to love him/ her. This is also not a reason to be unhappy within marriage neither to seek divorce.

So this also does not fit your criteria of outside the worse category. That is also good to know. By the way, who determines what is trivial?

1. However, sacrament of matrimony is given by the couple to each other, and so marriage vow is about faithful love to one another. If a vow is broken, there isn’t power to bind the couple anymore, or rather no longer an obligation for the righteous party to continue to fulfill the vow while the other party breaking it.

HUH? I don’t remember saying: “for better or for worse, unless she breaks a vow”. I only remember saying: “for better or for worse.” I have always thought that for better or for worse was all encompassing. When I read what you write, I hear the devil saying: "go ahead Duane, since your wife broke her vow before the Lord, it is okay for you to break your vow that you also made before the Lord. Don’t worry, God will understand, and condone it(take a bite of that apple, it’s delicious). But doesn’t God show us how the covenant of matrimony can and should be lived out in the OT? No matter how many times Israel was unfaithful, the Lord remained true to Israel. Are we not called to do the same?

1. Unless the righteous party choose to continue trying to save the marriage, then the marriage is dissolved.Ofcourse in the case the spouse of Israel who is the Faithful God (the righteous party) who choose to continue to save Israel, despite her many offences, we are human aren’t supposedly being imposed on such a hard teaching on. Not everybody can take such a hard teaching, especially in abuse/ adultery cases. It is God’s mercy to forgive our unability to save ourselves, therefore God saves us. Thus it should be allowed if the vow has been broken, then the righteous party should be allowed to choose not to continue the marriage, unless he/ she choose otherwise. The last one is called grace/ mercy. Grace/ mercy can’t be forced. It has to come from freewill.

After reading everything you have posted, I wonder what makes you different than the Pharisees who asked Jesus the question in the first place? I am sure many of them thought the exact same thing about divorce.

I do find it interesting that if you read the early church father’s quotes on this passage, they all say that the teachings handed down to them from Jesus and the Apostles, is that there is no exception for divorce. But maybe you know Jesus’ teachings better than they did.

All the Church’s doctrines are about salvation of people. If I faithfully follow her teachings, I have the assurance of salvation.

 

[francisca]

NO Jesus did not allow divorce for adultery,

Divorce IS impossible. The only clause specified by Jesus is an Unlawful marriage. Common in the time of Jesus.

How about the bigger biblical context in which God is a Jealous God who refuse to tolerate Israel when she worshiped other gods? God left Israel because of her adulterous behavior so that she was as “one without a husband”

Remember St John the Baptist was put to death because he denounced the unlawful marriage of Herod the king with Herodia his brother’s wife.

I agree that without lawful reason for divorce, remarriage is adultery. Even so, people who divorce to remarry (people who commit offence in their previous marriage), Jesus can forgive them too.

I am sure even you can see how the church nowadays is sooooo much in great great need of reaching out to-- not only “ideal families”, but also-- to those whose first, second, third marriages fails and they still remarry again.

Example1: **Read the story about The Woman at The Well. **Jesus knew she had been in multiple failed marriages, and was in adulterous relationship at the time He talked to her. Such didn’t stop Jesus to minister to her.
Example2: **Jesus forgave the adulterous woman.**She was caught red handed, but Jesus forgave her and ask her not to do it anymore in the future.

So my point is “God is capable of forgiving adulterous behavior” even for people whose divorce was because of adultery, so long they are now repent, and longer adulterous anymore, then such shall be seen as God has shown them mercy.
If a person remarry, and he/she proven to be faithful to one spouse for a significant number of years, thus proven repentant behavior, then pardon should be administered to them. But the question is how to administer such mercy if the church can only let the people divorce in civil court, the church won’t know the past case of those couples with their first marriages and thus the church may-- for one reason or another-- being unfair in some cases, and also appear like the church is confused with its own position doctrinally.

Example: The couple in my first post in this thread, if supposedly say 10 years from now the husband find a young girlfriend and then they decide to get married, he will finally divorce his first wife civilly. After a number of years, he receive-- supposedly-- pardon from the church for being faithful to his new wife. Such is too painful a case for the first wife who has been abandon for a long time who is now not young anymore. It would have been easier (and more fair) for the first wife if only the church have a clear divorce law that allow such cases like hers to divorce his husband according to church law, and then she can register the divorce and custody of the education of the children approved/recommended by the church (in accordance to church divorce law)-- she can show and/or register such document to the civil court so then she can get her allimony and custody civilly will follow automatically and easier process for her so she can move on in life. I really thing she unecessarily live such an unfair life. Both physically and mentally she is a bankrupt for a long long time now.

St Paul is VERY clear on this:
I Corinthians Chapter 7:10
But to those who have been joined in matrimony, it is not I who commands you, but the Lord: a wife is not to separate from her husband. 11 But if she has separated from him, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband should not divorce his wife.

Right. My question:

A wife run away from extremely abusive husband to live with her relative. She refuse to comeback to her husband.
According to 1Cor7:10 above, she has committed 2 offence.
First offence, she insist on separation (1Cor710)
Second offence, she refuse to be reconciled to her husband (1Cor7:10)

1Cor7 also quotes “It is not I (st. paul) who COMMAND you, but THE LORD”.

Thus she break the Lord’s commands according to you ! Is that what you are saying?

Question:
Can 1Cor7:10 be used to judge her? If not, then which bible quote is more suitable for her case?

 

[francisca]

Wrong. Jesus does not give exception for adultery. If the writer had wanted to give an exception for adultery, he would have used the Greek word moicheia, which specifically means adultery.

Debating translation alone is quite tricky. How about debating the bigger context of God who is a jealous God who can’t tolerate Israel’s adultery with other gods?

btw,
Matthew 19 in my catholic bible is translated “except in case of prostitution”, in another traslation is translated as “immorality”.

Horrible reasoning. The Church also considers abortion a grave sin. Using your logic, since the Church considers abortion a grave sin, the Church cannot reach out to anyone that has had an abortion. I also take exception to you saying the Church condemns the divorced and remarried. The Church objectively says that based on Christ’s teacing, the divorced and remarried are committing adultery.

1. If divorce is grave sin, then it will not be allowed in Moses Law.
2. If the church refuse to recognize divorce, she can’t administer pardon to remarried people. Reason: in the eyes of the church, these people still married to their previous spouses. These people divorce and remarry civilly.

I hope you can see the difficulty there.

Did you say no consequences? All the examples you have just given are considered mortal sins by the Church. And the consequences of mortal sin, if you die in an unrepentant state, is hell.

So how to help these people? Let all remarried couples perish, according to you?

But doesn’t God show us how the covenant of matrimony can and should be lived out in the OT? No matter how many times Israel was unfaithful, the Lord remained true to Israel. Are we not called to do the same?

You are using my explanation to ask me the very topic that I already explained in my previous post to you at the very same quote BEFORE you ask me this.

After reading everything you have posted, I wonder what makes you different than the Pharisees who asked Jesus the question in the first place? I am sure many of them thought the exact same thing about divorce

I do find it interesting that if you read the early church father’s quotes on this passage, they all say that the teachings handed down to them from Jesus and the Apostles, is that there is no exception for divorce. But maybe you know Jesus’ teachings better than they did.

I respect the church fathers. However they live in different time.
btw, do you know that in the book of revelation there are seven scrolls which seals-- who knows-- shall be open in our time? Who knows! God knows my friend!

All the Church’s doctrines are about salvation of people. If I faithfully follow her teachings, I have the assurance of salvation.

Do you know that in the past we as catholic are not allowed to believe in the assurance of salvation? That my friend is the result of Joint Declaration with the protestant church… and I respect church fathers of our time for that!

 

[JerryZ]

How about the bigger biblical context in which God is a Jealous God who refuse to tolerate Israel when she worshiped other gods? God left Israel because of her adulterous behavior so that she was as “one without a husband”

GOD never divorced Israel, HE will not abandon anyone even a sinner, but that does not mean that the sinner will enjoy Heaven if he/she remains in sin.

I agree that without lawful reason for divorce, remarriage is adultery. Even so, people who divorce to remarry (people who commit offence in their previous marriage), Jesus can forgive them too.

How many times do you need to hear that if you divorce (separate from your spouse) AND remarry without seeking the annulment or after having initiated the process, received a negative answer (which means that the marriage WAS valid) both are committing adultery and fornication. Both mortal sins.
Yes Jesus forgives any sinner who repents. However repentance also means the resolution to stop the sinful activity (Adultery, fornication).

I am sure even you can see how the church nowadays is sooooo much in great great need of reaching out to-- not only “ideal families”, but also-- to those whose first, second, third marriages fails and they still remarry again.

**The Church cannot change teachings handed down by JESUS himself. No matter how strong your desire it cannot happen. **

Example1: **Read the story about The Woman at The Well. **Jesus knew she had Jesus forgave her and ask her not to do it anymore in the future.

Jesus forgives all sinners, but this does not give licence to the person to persevere in the sinful behaviour. You said it yourself (NOT TO DO IT ANYMORE)

So my point is “God is capable of forgiving adulterous behavior” even for people whose divorce was because of adultery, so long they are now repent, and longer adulterous anymore, being unfair in some cases, and also appear like the church is confused with its own position doctrinally.

If the person remarries after a divorce (NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH) that person is still married to the previous spouse. (Adultery, fornication). That person is living in mortal sin by having divorced the previous spouse. Unless an annulment can be obtained the only choices allowed are: reconcile with their legitimate spouse or if this is impossible remain celibate.

Example: The couple in my first post in this thread, if supposedly say 10 years from now the husband find a young girlfriend and then they decide to get married, he will finally . I really thing she unecessarily live such an unfair life. Both physically and mentally she is a bankrupt for a long long time now.

**
I am sorry but hypothetical scenarios were you conflating civil laws with Church law tend to be messy to separate. We can only speak from the standpoint of what Church teachings are. And apparently we are not having much success at explain or for you to accept what this teaching is. (NO DIVORCE) Period. No buts ifs or hows.
This has been the position of Jesus instituted Church since the beginning when HE told her how it has to be. Since when 2 people marry certain requirements or preconditions are necessary, if after some time the spouses want to separate and want to be able to validly remarry they have to prove that their marriage lacked some element that would have made that marriage valid. It is the only possibility a Catholic has. I unfortunately have some relatives that preferred to become protestants rather than accept this teaching. I pray for them too. Since they are living in objective sin, but as in many cases we live in denial of our sins, don’t we? We want to have it our way.**

Right. My question:

A wife run away from extremely abusive husband to live with her relative. She refuse to comeback to her husband.
According to 1Cor7:10 above, she has committed 2 offence.
First offence, she insist on separation (1Cor710)
Second offence, she refuse to be reconciled to her husband (1Cor7:10)

No she has committed no offence, the Church accepts that in such cases separation is warranted. The abused spouse talks to her spiritual director/priest and seeks to have the process of Church spouse separation.
She cannot remarry nor can she seek boyfriends or have sexual relations with anyone (that would be adultery) etc. Remember she is still married to her spouse.
If after a while it is deemed that no reconciliation is possible then she can proceed to ask the Church for the process of Annulment. The Church does not grant the process to be initiated immediately seeking to allow some time that the possibility of reconciliation could take place.

1Cor7 also quotes “It is not I (st. paul) who COMMAND you, but THE LORD”.

Thus she break the Lord’s commands according to you ! Is that what you are saying?

Uhmm I do not believe that it was I who gave this teaching. Jesus words are pretty clear as are St. Paul’s.

Question:
Can 1Cor7:10 be used to judge her? If not, then which bible quote is more suitable for her case?

I believe I answered the last comments above.

…

 

[francisca]

I believe I answered the last comments above.

…

True. You said she is allowed to be separated from her husband !
Yet, You keep quoting 1Cor7:10.
Your answer contradict your own quote.

 

[Duane1966]

Debating translation alone is quite tricky. How about debating the bigger context of God who is a jealous God who can’t tolerate Israel’s adultery with other gods?

Does God break His covenant with Israel? Can you give me scripture verses showing He broke His covenant because of their unfaithfulness?

1. If divorce is brave sin, then it will not be allowed in Moses Law.

“For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel” (Mal. 2:16)

I am not saying divorce is always a sin. But if two people are sacramentally married, and then get divorced and remarried to other people, they are living in adultery.

1. If the church refuse to recognize divorce, she can’t administer pardon to remarried people. Reason: in the eyes of the church, these people still married to their previous spouses. These people divorce and remarry civilly.

I hope you can see the difficulty there.

If on the one hand you say divorce is not a sin, and on the other hand, you say the remarriage is not a sin, then why would the Church need to pardon anything? I hope you can see the difficulty of your position.

So how to help these people? Let all remarried couples perish, according to you?

Have I ever said let them perish? I have true compassion for them. Unfortunately, I have also seen the destruction divorce causes. I have heard tons of reasons why so and so had to get a divorce.

At the end of the day, did they say “for better or for worse?” If they did, what should happen when worse does come along?

You are using my explanation to ask me the very topic that I already explained in my previous post to you at the very same quote BEFORE you ask me this.

I found your explanation lacking. Did God remain faithful to His covenant with Israel, no matter what Israel did?

I respect the church fathers. However they live in different time.

What does time have to do with It? I thought truth was eternal. If the church fathers were right back then, they are surely right now. Seems like you are saying truth changes with how you feel on a certain day?

btw, do you know that in the book of revelation there are seven scrolls which seals-- who knows-- shall be open in our time? Who knows! God knows my friend!

Of course He does, He inspired the writer.

Do you know that in the past we as catholic are not allowed to believe in the assurance of salvation? That my friend is the result of Joint Declaration with the protestant church… and I respect church fathers of our time for that!

Wrong again. The Church has always taught that if you die in a state of grace you have the assurance of salvation. I refer you to the article at Catholic.com, so you can read what the Church taught from the beginning.

 

[JerryZ]

True. You said she is allowed to be separated from her husband !
Yet, You keep quoting 1Cor7:10.
Your answer contradict your own quote.

Uhmm I laid out for you what recourse the woman in your scenario has. If she separated following the Church process then why would she be judged?
She has not committed any sin!

That verse is meant for anyone who is married and contemplates separating from their spouse.
It makes us (myself included as I am married) aware, that if our marriage was valid (not unlawful), we cannot break our vows made before GOD as witness.
Our only option is to obtain a Church separation, if we want to avoid sin we must keep celibate as we are married until death do us part.

If we can prove that the marriage was unlawful due to some of the requirements for marriage NOT being present when we married then we can apply for an annulment.
When we are granted the annulment we are free to remarry.
The annulment will not be granted based on facts that occurred after we became married.

…

 

[francisca]

God has never leave nor forsake Israel for the sake of His covenant with Israel’s forefathers Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.

However, in my opinion:

1. (Human) Marriage is between a man and a woman,
   eventhough the quality of human faithful love in the ideal form is comparable to God’s love.
2. Marriage Sacraments & vows is given by couple to each other
3. An adulterous/ abusive man (or woman) cannot be compared to God
4. Rather, an adulterous/ abusive man (or woman) is comparable to adulterous Israel (the party who
   commit offence and “has fallen short of the glory of God”)
5. The non-offender party in human marriage also can’t be compared to God. he/she represents the oppressed, the afflicted, victim of injustice, broken promise, etc.
6. God’s justice (the commandments, the taw) seeks repayment from the offender and defends the case of the afflicted.
7. A broken vow between two people will cause the righteous party to have a claim of right to break the bond/covenant between them. Thus if the righteous party so wishes, he/ she should be allowed to do so and still deem righteous in doing so.
8. Matthew19 shows that the question the pharisee asked was not only about whether divorce was allowed. The answer to such question was very clear: Moses allowed divorce. The question was more about was it lawful for ANY REASON.
9. If the church teach that divorce is not allowed even in the case where vows has been broken, then such teaching actually doesn’t follow the principle of justice.
10. it’s difficult to give understanding of mercy (especially to disputing parties), without the proper understanding of justice first.
11. to teach “divorce” as offence is not according to 10 commandments: “Thou shall not commit adultery”. Adultery is the offence (mortal sin), and has to be dealt with according to the law.
12. this law should not be to “stone to death” the adulterous party, rather to help the victims and also the sinner in God’s due time, plus to lead the general public to a better understanding of what it takes to built a good clean and holy marriage.

 

[rcwitness]

JerryZ is correct.

Jesus re-established marriage back to the dignity in which God established it. The only way a man and woman can divorce, is not really a divorce at all. It’s recognizing that the marriage was invalid because there was an unlawful impediment from the outset. This means God did not bind the two as one flesh under the law. Joseph was going to pursue this, being a righteous man, but the angel revealed to him that it was the Spirit which conceived Mary, and so he should accept a legal marriage.

So Paul commands, from the Lord, that in the case of a legal separation, this does not free them from the law of marriage until death. So there is only reconciliation or remaining single until one spouse dies. Then, and only then, a second marriage is possible

 

[Duane1966]

God has never leave nor forsake Israel for the sake of His covenant with Israel’s forefathers Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.

However, in my opinion:

1. (Human) Marriage is between a man and a woman,
   eventhough the quality of human faithful love in the ideal form is comparable to God’s love.
2. Marriage Sacraments & vows is given by couple to each other
3. An adulterous/ abusive man (or woman) cannot be compared to God
4. Rather, an adulterous/ abusive man (or woman) is comparable to adulterous Israel (the party who
   commit offence and “has fallen short of the glory of God”)
5. The non-offender party in human marriage also can’t be compared to God. he/she represents the oppressed, the afflicted, victim of injustice, broken promise, etc.
6. God’s justice (the commandments, the taw) seeks repayment from the offender and defends the case of the afflicted.
7. A broken vow between two people will cause the righteous party to have a claim of right to break the bond/covenant between them. Thus if the righteous party so wishes, he/ she should be allowed to do so and still deem righteous in doing so.
8. Matthew19 shows that the question the pharisee asked was not only about whether divorce was allowed. The answer to such question was very clear: Moses allowed divorce. The question was more about was it lawful for ANY REASON.
9. If the church teach that divorce is not allowed even in the case where vows has been broken, then such teaching actually doesn’t follow the principle of justice.
10. it’s difficult to give understanding of mercy (especially to disputing parties), without the proper understanding of justice first.
11. to teach “divorce” as offence is not according to 10 commandments: “Thou shall not commit adultery”. Adultery is the offence (mortal sin), and has to be dealt with according to the law.
12. this law should not be to “stone to death” the adulterous party, rather to help the victims and also the sinner in God’s due time, plus to lead the general public to a better understanding of what it takes to built a good clean and holy marriage.

Jesus answer to your opinion, (with some added commentary from me), from Matthew 19:

a*Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,*saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

4**b*He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’

5c*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’

6So they are no longer two, but one flesh**. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. (No human being, means the wrongdoer, and the righteous person, and everyone else in the world. )

”7**d*They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?

”8He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9e*I say to you,(FRANCISCA)whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.(unfaithfulness on the part of one of the parties in a marriage, does not make it unlawful).

”10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,**but only those to whom that is granted.

12Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage*for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” The Catholic Church accepts this.)*

Jesus says whoever divorces AND remarries IS committing adultery. You try to say not so. You use the word mercy a lot.
Is it merciful to say it is okay to do something that Jesus teaches is wrong?

You still have not answered the central question. How does unfaithfulness fall outside of the vow of**" for better or worse "** that we Catholics make? If it is acceptable to break the vow for unfaithfulness, surely it is acceptable if then one of the parties becomes chronically sick, or the marriage ends up poorer.

 

[francisca]

JerryZ is correct.

Jesus re-established marriage back to the dignity in which God established it. The only way a man and woman can divorce, is not really a divorce at all. It’s recognizing that the marriage was invalid because there was an unlawful impediment from the outset. This means God did not bind the two as one flesh under the law. Joseph was going to pursue this, being a righteous man, but the angel revealed to him that it was the Spirit which conceived Mary, and so he should accept a legal marriage.

So Paul commands, from the Lord, that in the case of a legal separation, this does not free them from the law of marriage until death. So there is only reconciliation or remaining single until one spouse dies. Then, and only then, a second marriage is possible

It’s quite simple if all catholic life follow the scenario of perfect family. How about those who divorced civilly and remarried civilly and turns out their second marriage is the good marriage and they also get children from this marriage and they grow old with the second marriage spouse and be faithful to him/her untill death do them part?

How about this scenario:

What if “faithful love” is a revelation" in our life, and not everyone living a good faith when they were young and immature so their first marriage broken apart. but when they have learnt from their mistakes-- only after their first marriage broken apart, and they remarry the second time-- only then they finally realize that love has to be faithful, and that true love doesn’t stop loving.

Don’t we all humans make mistakes once in a while, so then we learn from such mistakes?

So in this scenario, is it possible to view such scenario in this way:
that the first marriage was not sacramental (in retrospect) because the couple didn’t really know what they were doing at the time, they didn’t really understand fully what kind of “deal” they were entering/ sign up to, thus similar to people who sign a contract without really understand what’s the implication of what’s written in the contract (they’ve read “the contract” carefully and understand it by logic, but didn’t really understand fully the implication of it). Their second marriage, however, they’ve learn from the first, so when they “sign up” for this “contract”, they have better understanding of what it means to love, and therefore they can abide in it as required, eventhough sacrament was absent, the marriage is more valid in spirit and in truth compared to the first one which was done out of immature understanding of love.

In any case, I do believe that to understand True Love takes a divine revelation.

 

[Duane1966]

It’s quite simple if all catholic life follow the scenario of perfect family. How about those who divorced civilly and remarried civilly and turns out their second marriage is the good marriage and they also get children from this marriage and they grow old with the second marriage spouse and be faithful to him/her untill death do them part?

How about this scenario:

What if “faithful love” is a revelation" in our life, and not everyone living a good faith when they were young and immature so their first marriage broken apart. but when they have learnt from their mistakes-- only after their first marriage broken apart, and they remarry the second time-- only then they finally realize that love has to be faithful, and that true love doesn’t stop loving.

Don’t we all humans make mistakes once in a while, so then we learn from such mistakes?

So in this scenario, is it possible to view such scenario in this way:
that the first marriage was not sacramental (in retrospect) because the couple didn’t really know what they were doing at the time, they didn’t really understand fully what kind of “deal” they were entering/ sign up to, thus similar to people who sign a contract without really understand what’s the implication of what’s written in the contract (they’ve read “the contract” carefully and understand it by logic, but didn’t really understand fully the implication of it). Their second marriage, however, they’ve learn from the first, so when they “sign up” for this “contract”, they have better understanding of what it means to love, and therefore they can abide in it as required, eventhough sacrament was absent, the marriage is more valid in spirit and in truth compared to the first one which was done out of immature understanding of love.

In any case, I do believe that to understand True Love takes a divine revelation.

If it is cruel to not allow remarriage after first marriage, why would it not be cruel to not allow for second, or third, or fourth, and so on? What if people do not ever learn from their mistakes? What if the mistake is not the marriage, but the divorce? What if the person realizes she was happier with her first husband, than the second? What if first marriage is sacramental, but spouses want divorce anyway? We can say what if forever.

If you make an exception for the young and immature, why not the old and immature?