Jesus forbidding divorce except for sexual immorality

  • Thread starter Thread starter JGAR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JGAR

Guest
So, in
Matthew 19:4-9
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. ”

A person is arguing with me that since this is the ONLY case where Jesus allows divorce, then what if somebody who is being abused in marriage divorces. They are insinuating that this means that even IF you are being abused, you need to stay married or you are sinning.

Clearly, in the following the Catholic Church does NOT believe that:
"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement entitled, “When I Call For Help: A Pastoral Response To Domestic Violence Against Women” that addresses this issue and offers answers to the questions surrounding abusive marriages. In the introduction to the document it states:
The Catholic Church teaches that violence against another person in any form fails to treat that person as someone worthy of love. Instead, it treats the person as an object to be used. When violence occurs within a sacramental marriage, the abused spouse may question, “How do these violent acts relate to my promise to take my spouse for better or for worse?” The person being assaulted needs to know that acting to end the abuse does not violate the marriage promises. While violence can be directed towards men, it tends to harm women and children more.
It further states:
Click to expand...
Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing .
"
Click to expand...
How to reconcile these two items?
How is it OK to divorce due to abuse when Jesus states that only sexual immorality is allowed?
 
These items are speaking of a civil divorce and annulment. An annulment is a statement that a marriage never happened, which is different than divorce.
 
But her argument is that Jesus forbade divorce for ANYTHING other than sexual immorality.
SO, if you are being abused, how can you divorce and not run foul of what Jesus stated in this passage?
 
JGAR said:
But her argument is that Jesus forbade divorce for ANYTHING other than sexual immorality.
SO, if you are being abused, how can you divorce and not run foul of what Jesus stated in this passage?
Click to expand...
“Sexual immorality” is better translated as violation of natural (or ecclesiastic) law. In this way it is not talking about civil divorce to protect someone’s person, but is really taking about the validity of the marriage in a scared context.

That being the case, someone could legally divorce because of abuse, but that does not mean that they are free to contract a new marriage unless the marriage also violated natural or ecclesial law.
 
So, the Catholic Church believes you can get divorced for ANY reason, but you can’t get remarried.
Is that correct?
 
As far as I understand this, the word “fornication” which is used in this passage, actually means in cases where the marriage was invalid in the first place due to a marriage that was forbidden according to Jewish laws.
In the case of abuse - you can of course separate from your spouse. Divorce - no, not if it was initially a valid marriage.
 
Divorce is a legal term, you cannot divorce in the Catholic Church. You can get an annulment or separate.
 
Last edited:
? Ok, so now you CAN’T get divorced, but you can just leave them if being abused?
I can’t understand how Jesus would want that – force someone to stay married if they are being abused.
 
Exactly, you can leave them, of course. Jesus isn’t “forcing” anyone to do anything. When two people are validly married they become one. They can separate, but marriage is permanent, until one spouse dies.
Edit: I’m not an expert, 99% sure what I’m saying is correct but perhaps someone more knowledgeable could also pitch in. 🙂
 
Last edited:
JGAR said:
Ok, so now you CAN’T get divorced, but you can just leave them if being abused?
I can’t understand how Jesus would want that – force someone to stay married if they are being abused.
Click to expand...
Divorce is a legal action. Strictly speaking the Church does not support “divorcing for ANY reason”, but only accepts the legality in order to protect the spouse or children. For instance, the Church doesn’t support divorce because your spouse cheats on you unless reconciliation would lead to further harm.

In the case of abuse, the abused spouse has every right to remove themselves from harm… But that does not mean it invalidates their marriage.

It is quite possible that two people entered into a valid marriage and then one of them started abusing the other. The abused spouse could file for a civil divorce as a means of protection and then seek declaration of nullity if there is grounds that the marriage, at it’s inception, was invalid. Abuse might be a sign of defect of consent, but in of itself does not invalidate the marriage. In that case you could have a person that is legally divorced, but still sacramentally married to their abuser. Because the sacramental bond still exists, neither of the former partners would be free to enter a new marriage until one or the other of them died.
 
OK, let’s back up here a second. From someone who has been there, done that, and finds very little to like about it:
  • There are times when, regrettably, couples have to separate. It could be abuse, it could be something else. As the USCCB so wisely states, no one has to stay in an abusive situation.
  • Sometimes a trial separation, of a definite or indefinite duration, can address the issue without resorting to divorce.
  • Sometimes, though, divorce has to happen. If you can avoid it, do avoid it, but sometimes, there is no other choice.
  • The only thing divorce does — the only thing — is to ensure each spouse’s legal rights, property rights, and in the case of children, child custody. It does not dissolve the sacramental marriage, and it does not free you to marry someone else. Only a declaration of nullity (or lack of form declaration, if a Catholic has sought to marry outside the Church) can do the latter.
This is not all that complicated. Marriage is for life. Divorce only addresses temporal concerns, not spiritual ones.
 
Last edited:
JGAR said:
A person is arguing with me that since this is the ONLY case where Jesus allows divorce,
Click to expand...
  1. This person misinterpreted the text. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is summarizing the Jews’ belief of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 back to them and concluding that this passage is not longer an excuse for God.
  2. Domestic abuse can’t be used as a reason for annullment unless there is evidence that predates the marriage vow. Refer to Is Domestic Violence Grounds for an Annulment? | Catholic Answers. With regard to the USCCB statement, not everyone is an expert in canon law.
 
Last edited:
JGAR said:
But her argument is that Jesus forbade divorce for ANYTHING other than sexual immorality.
SO, if you are being abused, how can you divorce and not run foul of what Jesus stated in this passage?
Click to expand...
It’s a civil divorce which is just a legal matter. Assuming the marriage was contracted validly, the marriage itself is still valid even in cases of abuse or adultery. The civil divorce just helps legally protect the spouse from a bad situation.
 
Last edited:
Wait just a minute! Inaccurate translation! The Greek is “porneia” which meant, in those times, an unlawful marriage for sexual purposes, almost like a paid mistress.

Many “modern” bibles have changed that, as they have “softened” our Lord’s words so as to accept what the Lord decried. In doing so, all other Christians sects - all of them - have chosen to ignore both the Prophet Malachi as well as Christ regarding divorce.
Malachi 2:16 “For I hate divorce , says the Lord the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.”
Click to expand...
 
So just so I am clear, you can get divorced, but in the eyes of the CHURCH you are still married (because divorce isn’t anything about a sacrament, simply a civil court thing)?

SO, if you are abused, you can get divorced, but NEVER marry again because a)you are still married in the eyes of the Church and b)you can’t get it annulled unless it was a pre-existing thing?
 
So basically:
  1. If domestic violence can be determined to have it’s cause before or during the Wedding, the vows are surely invalid and you can obtain an Anullment to re-marry and a divorce to separate yourself.
  2. If domestic violence arised after the Wedding and it can be determined that the spouse did make the vows honestly (at that time), then the Marriage is valid and you can only obtain a divorce to separate yourself and live in chastity.
 
JGAR said:
How is it OK to divorce due to abuse when Jesus states that only sexual immorality is allowed?
Click to expand...
Jesus gave the Church to power and authority to bind and loose. It is not black and white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top