P
Phemie
Guest
Divorce, as understood in that Bible passage, ended the marriage.
Divorce, as understood in the Church today, doesn’t end the marriage.
- Status
Divorce, as understood in the Church today, doesn’t end the marriage.
I don’t know, but I do know that Pope Francis said that “a portion” of sacramental marriages are invalid for that reason. (He started out saying “most”, but possibly this was found to be disagreeable, either by himself or his advisers, so he changed it to “a portion”, which could be “most” but does not necessarily have to be.)
I share his opinion on this. I think there are many Catholics who get married but do not truly comprehend the sacramental nature of what they are doing, one reason being that they do not truly understand what sacraments even are. Poor catechesis and a worldly, secular mindset. Ditto for many non-Catholic Christians (many of whom also labor under the misconception that judges have the power to dissolve marriages in the absolute sense).
I share his opinion on this. I think there are many Catholics who get married but do not truly comprehend the sacramental nature of what they are doing, one reason being that they do not truly understand what sacraments even are. Poor catechesis and a worldly, secular mindset. Ditto for many non-Catholic Christians (many of whom also labor under the misconception that judges have the power to dissolve marriages in the absolute sense).
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
Even Jesus said that the sin came in re-marrying.
The Church (which has the authority to apply Jesus’ commands in various contexts) allows separation and even civil divorce for its legal effects in cases like abuse, but agrees with Jesus that even then the marriage is not actually dissolved and thus neither party can rightly contract another.
The Church (which has the authority to apply Jesus’ commands in various contexts) allows separation and even civil divorce for its legal effects in cases like abuse, but agrees with Jesus that even then the marriage is not actually dissolved and thus neither party can rightly contract another.
If you’re sufficiently catechized, and take the Faith seriously enough that you understand both the permanence and the basic ends of marriage, that’s probably enough to be able to contract a valid sacramental marriage. Many people these days lack those two things.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
.
What Jesus said about divorce puts Protestants who believe in divorce in a bad position.
Jesus said that a couple could divorce (or, actually, separate) only in the case of unfaithfulness.
Protestants generally believe that you can divorce on many grounds other than unfaithfulness. But this goes against Jesus’ teaching, that this can occur ONLY when one of the spouses is unfaithful. However, Protestants generally don’t teach that you can divorce only on the grounds of unfaithfulness.
.
I have sometimes wondered why no one seems to notice this.
I am not trying to slam Protestants, I am just surprised that they do not follow the Bible in this.
What Jesus said about divorce puts Protestants who believe in divorce in a bad position.
Jesus said that a couple could divorce (or, actually, separate) only in the case of unfaithfulness.
Protestants generally believe that you can divorce on many grounds other than unfaithfulness. But this goes against Jesus’ teaching, that this can occur ONLY when one of the spouses is unfaithful. However, Protestants generally don’t teach that you can divorce only on the grounds of unfaithfulness.
.
I have sometimes wondered why no one seems to notice this.
I am not trying to slam Protestants, I am just surprised that they do not follow the Bible in this.
Last edited:
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
@JGAR
The word translated “sexual immorality” or “unfaithfulness” is “porn-ea”; the root of the word is porn. As in “porno-graphy” drawing porn images.
Much of Catholic Teaching on this verse is mixtures of traditions from the middle ages vs. Jewish understandings. I’m not aware of ex-cathedra statements defining it precisely, but note: castii connubi states “the husband has priority over the wife and children.” That is the English translation of official church teaching is precisely the OPPOSITE of what civil courts have been enforcing in these recent years, leading to abuse of children by women. ( But arguably protecting the same children from abuse by men. )
The equality of parents is not being supported because of fears of men’s physical violence. I have a child who is transgender and gone through suicide counseling, and I never physically did anything to that child.
The church’s concern for abused women is something I share; but at the same time, the present political solution is doomed to cause more violence. For, punishing the guilty and innocent alike, based on false appearances, is definitely happening.
Castii Connubi’s statements about the “priority of Husband’s” might as well be put in the garbage. NO ONE believes it even on this site. The catholic church has little or no credibility in U.S. Civil Court systems. I have a cousin in jail for 20 years for attempting to kill his ex-wife; She was caught on film smacking children around. She called 911 and accused him of “hitting” her. He was black, she was white they had just divorced. The police refused to recview the video and he went to prison. After he got out, he had lost his children. So, He attempted to kidnap them, and in the process saw his ex-wife in bed with her new husband. That’s all it took to flip the entire rage switch. She was anti-catholic, Philip was Catholic. Men are designed to fight to protect their children, and any laws that don’t respect Darwin’s principle about offspring are going to start a war, eventually.
Whether or not a person can divorce was brought to the fore by Jesus by the use of pornea. A term which indicates any kind of perversion that isn’t marriage.
Marriage contract is defined by law.
Read up on Adam and Eve. There’s at least one obvious reason Adam doesn’t get told to divorce his wife by God, that does NOT apply to most Christians in abusive marriages who go before church tribunals.
I wrote a bishop last month that “I did not do what Adam did.”
Was porn involved in my marriage … “YES!”
When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, he is not speaking to people with sacramental marriages. Adam and Eve did not have a sacramental marriage, because Jesus had not come yet. No one marries in the world to come, either … except in Eucharistic union with Jesus, himself.
The word translated “sexual immorality” or “unfaithfulness” is “porn-ea”; the root of the word is porn. As in “porno-graphy” drawing porn images.
Much of Catholic Teaching on this verse is mixtures of traditions from the middle ages vs. Jewish understandings. I’m not aware of ex-cathedra statements defining it precisely, but note: castii connubi states “the husband has priority over the wife and children.” That is the English translation of official church teaching is precisely the OPPOSITE of what civil courts have been enforcing in these recent years, leading to abuse of children by women. ( But arguably protecting the same children from abuse by men. )
The equality of parents is not being supported because of fears of men’s physical violence. I have a child who is transgender and gone through suicide counseling, and I never physically did anything to that child.
The church’s concern for abused women is something I share; but at the same time, the present political solution is doomed to cause more violence. For, punishing the guilty and innocent alike, based on false appearances, is definitely happening.
Castii Connubi’s statements about the “priority of Husband’s” might as well be put in the garbage. NO ONE believes it even on this site. The catholic church has little or no credibility in U.S. Civil Court systems. I have a cousin in jail for 20 years for attempting to kill his ex-wife; She was caught on film smacking children around. She called 911 and accused him of “hitting” her. He was black, she was white they had just divorced. The police refused to recview the video and he went to prison. After he got out, he had lost his children. So, He attempted to kidnap them, and in the process saw his ex-wife in bed with her new husband. That’s all it took to flip the entire rage switch. She was anti-catholic, Philip was Catholic. Men are designed to fight to protect their children, and any laws that don’t respect Darwin’s principle about offspring are going to start a war, eventually.
Whether or not a person can divorce was brought to the fore by Jesus by the use of pornea. A term which indicates any kind of perversion that isn’t marriage.
Marriage contract is defined by law.
Read up on Adam and Eve. There’s at least one obvious reason Adam doesn’t get told to divorce his wife by God, that does NOT apply to most Christians in abusive marriages who go before church tribunals.
I wrote a bishop last month that “I did not do what Adam did.”
Was porn involved in my marriage … “YES!”
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
This is exactly my sentiments too. I think it’s something that becomes so profound when you look back on the journey. I think about how easily it could all have broken down considering our differences and flaws. It’s when you look back at times where you just put one foot in front of the other and persevere with faith, the grace of God becomes almost visible in your memories. Perseverance and prayer are an unfailing combo for marriage.
A
annad347
Guest
I have a question. If the Pope can bind on earth, then it will be bind in heaven… Why can the Pope not write a document that allows a woman a divorce when it is proven that the man she married was not following the rules Jesus stated on how a husband should treat his wife?
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,… a husband who abuses his wife is not loving her as he loves Christ.
Couldn’t the Pope use that verse to write a new law to protect women in abusive relationships, so that sexual immorality and abuse can be grounds for divorce?
also wouldn’t that also prove that the man is not the same man who participated in the Sacrament of Marriage, so the vows the woman made at the time were to a different person spiritually?
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
I do. If Paul’s teaching on harmonious hierarchy in marriage were better understood and followed and respected and preached more clearly and charitably and honestly, we would have much more PEACE in marriages.
K
kapp19
Guest
That’s not what Popes are for. They don’t invent new morals or doctrines.
If a sacramental marriage has been contracted, death is what dissolves it. Divorce (civilly) could be justified in some cases, but not remarriage. Many times, however, abusive relationships were not marriages to begin with and can easily enough be proven as such in the right juridical order.
If a sacramental marriage has been contracted, death is what dissolves it. Divorce (civilly) could be justified in some cases, but not remarriage. Many times, however, abusive relationships were not marriages to begin with and can easily enough be proven as such in the right juridical order.
A
annad347
Guest
If its biblical how a husband is suppose to treat his wife, how is that inventing a new moral?
then a person would be allowed to marry again? I’m not sure I understand because it sounded like nothing would allow a divorce person to remarry in the Catholic church.
K
kapp19
Guest
Allowing for remarriage after a real sacramental marriage while the spouse lives would be a new doctrine.
An annulment is a declaration of the Church that there was no marriage… this is the normal way that “remarriage” can occur, together with the Pauline and Petrine privileges (and death).
An annulment is a declaration of the Church that there was no marriage… this is the normal way that “remarriage” can occur, together with the Pauline and Petrine privileges (and death).
A
annad347
Guest
so the best thing to do is get a divorce and then an annulment.
K
kapp19
Guest
That would depend on the individual case… ideally there’s no divorce or annulment at all of course!
A
annad347
Guest
ideally a husband wouldn’t abuse his wife and treat her as God intended her to be treated when they married.
I still don’t understand how they couldn’t use that to declare the sacrament of marriage void in the church… the husband did not honor the vows he made when he said them by abusing his wife… wouldn’t that make the sacrament a lie?
K
kapp19
Guest
Only if the claim that he lied during the contracting of vows could hold up in an ecclesiastical court. Nobody is perfect: the key is that the actual exchange of vows was dishonest (or impossible). Same with the act of contrition in confession… Is the absolution invalid if we sin ever again? No, but it’s invalid if we are lying about being sorry for our sins and wanting to sin no more.
There are plenty of resources for understanding the basics of the indissolubility of Matrimony and annulments etc. Try the USCCB page for a start.
There are plenty of resources for understanding the basics of the indissolubility of Matrimony and annulments etc. Try the USCCB page for a start.
A
annad347
Guest
never mind… its just sad that in this day and age an abused wife would be considered abandoning her church by divorcing her abusive husband… and if for some reason she was blessed by God to find love again and would want to marry again in her church. Cause so far that’s what it sounds like.
K
kapp19
Guest
It’s sad someone would be abused, it’s sad a marriage would deteriorate, it’s sad one would feel forced to get a divorce - but saddest of all, according to the words of the Lord, is the sin of presuming that one is free to attempt marriage with another, while one’s presumptive spouse still lives. Christ says the one who is hard-hearted is the one who would try such a thing - even if there are degrees of sin in such acts. Marriage is indeed a gift from God - He gives it, we do not take it from Him.
But no, simply divorcing someone is not “abandoning the Church” - nor, technically, is attempting remarriage - it is simply the sin of bigamy, with the implied sin of adultery.
But no, simply divorcing someone is not “abandoning the Church” - nor, technically, is attempting remarriage - it is simply the sin of bigamy, with the implied sin of adultery.
G
goout
Guest
Yes. Illustrates the pitfalls of individualist biblical interpretation.
G
goout
Guest
Common sense ought to apply. A spouse suffering abuse ought to take prudent steps, including leaving the spouse if necessary (or having the other removed!).
And then seek an annulment from the Church and divorce, if that is the prudent thing to do.
We are not slaves to rules. The Church’s moral guidance leads to human freedom, not slavery.
And then seek an annulment from the Church and divorce, if that is the prudent thing to do.
We are not slaves to rules. The Church’s moral guidance leads to human freedom, not slavery.
Last edited:
- Status