Mat 19:9 for divorce?

[diggerdomer]

The Church is really clear on this, and I’m not sure why you continue to argue this point through bald, unsourced assertions. Do you remain genuinely confused on the issue, or are you just unwilling to admit that your initial guess was wrong?

Wow. Relax.

For a reference for my “bald, unsourced assertions,” please see the Code of Canon Law with new commentary published by Paulist Press (commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America) copyright 2000.

Also, the CCC and Canon Law do not contradict one another, properly interpreted and understood.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Wow. Relax.

I’m not trying to attack you. I was just worried that the OP was going to read what you’d said and understand it as what the Church taught, which could lead to bad results. Particularly on this subject, getting things even innocently wrong can lead to some messy situations.

For a reference for my “bald, unsourced assertions,” please see the Code of Canon Law with new commentary published by Paulist Press (commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America) copyright 2000.

What part of Canon Law says certain valid, consummated marriages can be dissolved? Or that Canon 1141 has exceptions?

Also, the CCC and Canon Law do not contradict one another, properly interpreted and understood.

I agree. Now let’s assume that there’s some uncertainty about whether Canons 1142 and 1143 allow the dissolution of a valid marriage. That seems to be the nature of the discussion at this point. Since we’re protected from contradiction, let’s look at the rest of Canon Law and the Catechism.

Canon 1141 says that “A marriage which is ratified and consummated **cannot **be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.” And the Canon doesn’t list any exceptions. (Again, contrast this with something like Canon 1080.1).

The Catechism, in all the places I mentioned previously, makes it even more abundantly clear.

**CCC 1650 **Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Since, as you correctly pointed out, Canon Law can’t contradict the Catechism, we should understand Canons 1141 through 1143 in this light. Does that make any more sense than my original statement?

 

[Bluegoat]

The term is not always translated as fornication. A perfectly acceptable translation is “unnatural unions” and one could make a good argument that this is actually a better translation.

So, in that case, the passage says divorce is allowed in the cases where the marriage is by nature unnatural - say you discover you married your mother It could be extended, on principle, to other cases where the marriage never had the right elements in the first place - say, one person was coerced.

On a related note, I have found that one needs to be really careful with the word “divorced”. It is used in a very specific way in Catholicism, and is different than annulled, as I am sure you know. In the passage in question, a modern Catholic would speak of it as an annulment.

But in documents etc one sometimes finds the words used interchangeably, or divorce used to indicate both kinds of dissolution. So you have to look at how the word is being used to see what they actually mean. (As an Anglican, I often have Catholics tell me Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. Actually, he wanted an annulment, despite the fact that on “The Tudors” they constantly use the term divorce.)

In fact, in many non-Catholic circles, they use “divorce” to refer to situations that Catholics might say is an annulment, and reserve annulment only for the legal type.

 

[steve_b]

Hello all
I have a quick question (or I hope so lol) does Mat 19:6 allow divorce in the case of adultry (the translation I use uses the word fornification)? As in if your wife or husband cheated on you would you, according to this verse be allowed to remarry and not be an adulter? Any clarification would be great! Thanks

9: And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.*

Adultery is a mortal sin and so is fornication.

If Porneia means fornication, and this is the loophole (exception rule) if one wanted to end their marriage and remarry another, it makes no sense.

Since God hates divorce,[Mal 2:16], One should ask, why would God put fornication as a loophole for ending marriage? IOW, Commit a mortal sin of fornication and you can end your marriage validly to remarry another, and in doing this one avoids the mortal sin of adultery? :whacky:

Seems to me

• something is wrong with the translation of porneia = fornication.
• porneia most likely means unlawful marriage i.e. between relatives that are too close in blood line to each other

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not trying to attack you. I was just worried that the OP was going to read what you’d said and understand it as what the Church taught, which could lead to bad results. Particularly on this subject, getting things even innocently wrong can lead to some messy situations.

What part of Canon Law says certain valid, consummated marriages can be dissolved? Or that Canon 1141 has exceptions?

I agree. Now let’s assume that there’s some uncertainty about whether Canons 1142 and 1143 allow the dissolution of a valid marriage. That seems to be the nature of the discussion at this point. Since we’re protected from contradiction, let’s look at the rest of Canon Law and the Catechism.

Canon 1141 says that “A marriage which is ratified and consummated **cannot **be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.” And the Canon doesn’t list any exceptions. (Again, contrast this with something like Canon 1080.1).

The Catechism, in all the places I mentioned previously, makes it even more abundantly clear.

Since, as you correctly pointed out, Canon Law can’t contradict the Catechism, we should understand Canons 1141 through 1143 in this light. Does that make any more sense than my original statement?

Did you look at the reference I posted? If not, it might not be helpful to continue this dialogue, though if you want me to copy and paste the applicable citations from this reference I could do so, as long as I am sure I wouldn’t be violating any copyright concerns.

By the way, since you accuse me of bald unsourced assertions (was that really not an attack?) – let me ask, what resources or references are you relying on?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Did you look at the reference I posted? If not, it might not be helpful to continue this dialogue, though if you want me to copy and paste the applicable citations from this reference I could do so, as long as I am sure I wouldn’t be violating any copyright concerns.

By the way, since you accuse me of bald unsourced assertions (was that really not an attack?) – let me ask, what resources or references are you relying on?

The reference that you posted was the entirety of Canon Law plus a commentary. There were no specific citations at all: just a citation to the entirety of the Latin Rite Church’s law. I’ve read the relevant canons on marriage before - I’ve taken a law school class on it - but I haven’t read the commentary you cited to (although I’ve read a pretty good one by Fr. Ladislas Orsy). As for the sources I’m relying on, I’ve already cited the applicable portions of the Catechism and Canon Law, but can cite to them again if needed. It shouldn’t matter who the publisher is: they should be word-for-word identical.

I can see that I’ve upset you, and I apologize. My concern was that you might lead someone else astray, and that you were presenting your own Biblical interpretation in place of the Catholic Church’s; it was not my intention to attack you personally, and if you’d like to explore why the Church believes as She does on this issue, I’m open to doing so with you.

 

[diggerdomer]

The reference that you posted was the entirety of Canon Law plus a commentary. There were no specific citations at all: just a citation to the entirety of the Latin Rite Church’s law. I’ve read the relevant canons on marriage before - I’ve taken a law school class on it - but I haven’t read the commentary you cited to (although I’ve read a pretty good one by Fr. Ladislas Orsy). As for the sources I’m relying on, I’ve already cited the applicable portions of the Catechism and Canon Law, but can cite to them again if needed. It shouldn’t matter who the publisher is: they should be word-for-word identical.

I can see that I’ve upset you, and I apologize. My concern was that you might lead someone else astray, and that you were presenting your own Biblical interpretation in place of the Catholic Church’s; it was not my intention to attack you personally, and if you’d like to explore why the Church believes as She does on this issue, I’m open to doing so with you.

Thanks. The problem seems to be that anyone can read the same sources (text of canon law, catechism) but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll come away with the same understanding. We apparently differ on how to interpret and understand these sources.

 

[srferdave]

Thanks. The problem seems to be that anyone can read the same sources (text of canon law, catechism) but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll come away with the same understanding. We apparently differ on how to interpret and understand these sources.

That doesn’t make both interpretations right. You still need to determine the right way to interpret this. Personally, I think the Catechism and Canon Law are pretty straight forward. But if you need help interpreting anything it is probably best to go to an expert in the Church. When it comes to marriage - if you are having a harding time understanding what the true Church teaching is - you should probably ask someone such as a person on the “panel” that grants annulements. Reading the Catechism it should be fairly understandable. But if you are having a hard time then consult an expert.

 

[diggerdomer]

That doesn’t make both interpretations right. You still need to determine the right way to interpret this. Personally, I think the Catechism and Canon Law are pretty straight forward. But if you need help interpreting anything it is probably best to go to an expert in the Church. When it comes to marriage - if you are having a harding time understanding what the true Church teaching is - you should probably ask someone such as a person on the “panel” that grants annulements. Reading the Catechism it should be fairly understandable. But if you are having a hard time then consult an expert.

Thanks for your concern, but I don’t think I’m having a hard time.

 

[srferdave]

Thanks for your concern, but I don’t think I’m having a hard time.

OK - but don’t you think it would be wise to verify your interpretation of Church teaching?

 

[srferdave]

It might be helpful to see this post…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78605

 

[diggerdomer]

OK - but don’t you think it would be wise to verify your interpretation of Church teaching?

I did. That’s why I consulted the most recent and extensive commentary on the Code of Canon Law that I could find in the English language. I posted the info about that resource in a previous post, if you want to read it for yourself.

What resources do you use to verify your opinion? I’d appreciate other resources.

 

[srferdave]

I did. That’s why I consulted the most recent and extensive commentary on the Code of Canon Law that I could find in the English language. I posted the info about that resource in a previous post, if you want to read it for yourself.

What resources do you use to verify your opinion? I’d appreciate other resources.

I do not have access to your resource. Can you please quote it?

Other than the catechism that everyone has iterated over and over on this thread, i gave you one resource on post #31. When i have a little more time i will find you others.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do not have access to your resource. Can you please quote it?

Other than the catechism that everyone has iterated over and over on this thread, i gave you one resource on post #31. When i have a little more time i will find you others.

That link didn’t help, but thanks anyway for the consideration.

The commentary is pages long, so I really don’t have time to type all of it here. I would expect that someone at your parish (or a nearby parish) would have a copy of it. At least I sure hope they would. If not, perhaps your diocese could help with finding access to it. If nothing else, you could contact your diocesan office (tribunal) that handles annulments and ask them the simple question we’re discussing on this thread.

 

[srferdave]

That link didn’t help, but thanks anyway for the consideration.

The commentary is pages long, so I really don’t have time to type all of it here. I would expect that someone at your parish (or a nearby parish) would have a copy of it. At least I sure hope they would.

Why did that link not help? I thought it was a pretty good explanation of what the church teaches.

Can you at least give me the page numbers?

 

[diggerdomer]

Why did that link not help? I thought it was a pretty good explanation of what the church teaches.

Can you at least give me the page numbers?

That link seemed to focus on divorce, which is not (as I understand it) the issue here.

I don’t have the book with me right now, but it’s the pages associated with the Canons we’ve been discussing. The book I referred is a commentary and the Code, so the commentary is presented in line with the Code. If you find a copy or someone who has one, you can just ask them to refer to the Canons under discussion and all the commentary will be right there.

 

[srferdave]

That link seemed to focus on divorce, which is not (as I understand it) the issue here.

We are not discussing divorce??? If you recall the title of this thread is “Mat 19:9 for divorce?”.

Also… you state your self…

What Jesus “makes clear” in Matthew seems to differ from what Jesus “makes clear” in Mark and Luke. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems to also acknowledge there are acceptable situations of divorce.

and…

I never said anything about annulments. The OP didn’t ask about annulments. I am not factually wrong. The OP asked about the Bible and divorce. The Bible does not mention annulments. Please be more careful in your accusations.

Did you forget what thread we are on?

I don’t have the book with me right now, but it’s the pages associated with the Canons we’ve been discussing. The book I referred is a commentary and the Code, so the commentary is presented in line with the Code. If you find a copy or someone who has one, you can just ask them to refer to the Canons under discussion and all the commentary will be right there.

Well, when you get ahold of the book let me know. I can’t help but suspect that is a cop-out. So please find it for me. If I have the page number i might be able to view it on a google books preview. But i can’t go searching through it because google books will not allow that.

 

[diggerdomer]

We are not discussing divorce??? If you recall the title of this thread is “Mat 19:9 for divorce?”.

Also… you state your self…

and…

Did you forget what thread we are on?

Well, when you get ahold of the book let me know. I can’t help but suspect that is a cop-out. So please find it for me. If I have the page number i might be able to view it on a google books preview. But i can’t go searching through it because google books will not allow that.

Yes, I know the initial question involved divorce, but the conversation I’ve been involved with (as I understood) recently involves the question of whether or not a valid marriage can be dissolved by the Church. I say yes, in certain circumstances, as the Code of Canon Law notes.

I am not copping out. I’m still waiting for you to share any reference or resource that you’ve consulted apart from the Catechism and Code of Canon Law that we all have referred to and anyone can read…do you have any?

I have a copy of the book I refer to, which I’ve said before. If you’re unable to refer to it (or any other respectable resource) then there may be no point in continuing this and we can agree to disagree. Apparently we differ on our understanding of the CCC and Canon Law, I’ve done some research and provided you a reference to the source I consulted. If you can check it or any other resource other than your own impressions of the CCC and Canon Law please share when you can.

 

[srferdave]

Yes, I know the initial question involved divorce, but the conversation I’ve been involved with (as I understood) recently involves the question of whether or not a valid marriage can be dissolved by the Church. I say yes, in certain circumstances, as the Code of Canon Law notes.

I am not copping out. I’m still waiting for you to share any reference or resource that you’ve consulted apart from the Catechism and Code of Canon Law that we all have referred to and anyone can read…do you have any?

I have a copy of the book I refer to, which I’ve said before. If you’re unable to refer to it (or any other respectable resource) then there may be no point in continuing this and we can agree to disagree. Apparently we differ on our understanding of the CCC and Canon Law, I’ve done some research and provided you a reference to the source I consulted. If you can check it or any other resource other than your own impressions of the CCC and Canon Law please share when you can.

OK - Here are some things that I found. This is a very well understood Catholic doctrine. I don’t understand why you argue with me. Anyways…

Previous marriage is probably the most common impediment to marriage. The Church follows Christ’s teaching that marriage is a covenant that cannot be dissolved, so it does not recognize divorce as “dissolving” the previous marriage. However, the Church has a legal process for determining whether the previous marriage was valid—that is, that the couple freely gave themselves to one another in a way that brought about a valid marriage between them. If the Church determines that the previous marriage was not valid, it is said to be annulled. An annulment removes the impediment to marriage. - catholicweddinghelp.com/questions/rules-requirements.htm

The Church being the Divinely appointed custodian of all sacraments, it belongs to her jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Divine law of marriage. She cannot repeal or change that law. Marriage is, in its essential requirements, ever the same, monogamic and indissoluble. The contract validly made and consummated is dissolved by death alone. However, the Church must determine what is required for a valid and licit marriage contract. Doubt in so grave a matter, or uncertainty as to the form and duties of marriage, would be disastrous for the temporal and spiritual good of individuals and of society. The Church safeguards the sacramental contract by unremitting solicitude and directs the consciences and conduct of those who marry by moral teaching and canonical legislation. The procedure of her courts in cases where the validity or legality of a marriage is involved, is ordered by admirable insight. The Church derives her power to legislate in matrimonial affairs, not from the State, but from Christ; and acts, not on sufferance, but by Divine right. She recognizes the duty of the State to take cognizance of Christian marriage, in order to insure certain civic effects, but her jurisdiction is superior and of Divine origin. - newadvent.org/cathen/09699a.htm

For this reason, once two people stand in front of God and contract a marriage, if they enter into a marriage covenant as defined by the Catholic Church, this covenant cannot be dissolved so long as both parties remain alive. The marriage bond is in place until death. As a result, no new marriage covenant can be created with someone else - catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=409

The Catholic Church’s annulment process does not involve dissolving marriages, but determining whether a valid, indissoluble marriage existed from the beginning, he said. - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500753.htm

Christian marriage according to God’s law establishes three relationships: the relationship between husband and wife (“they shall become as one flesh”); a second between God and the man; and a third between God and the woman. God is the constant factor in this triangular relationship, which can only be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272

Is that enough or would you like more?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The Shepherd of Hermas (written mid 2nd century) comments on this

I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?” “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, "and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery." “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?” “Certainly,” saith he, "if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God. For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry. This is the manner of acting enjoined on husband and wife.