Mat 19:9 for divorce?

[Iwillposthere]

**THE MATTHEW EXCEPTION FOR DIVORCE IS NO REMARRIAGE AT ALL
**

I will prove, using logic and reason that the Matthew exception commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness is no exception at all because it leads to an absurdum.

The premise of the argument, that I will disprove in this lecture, maintains that the clause “except it be for fornication”, that is found in the Gospel of Matthew, is correctly interpreted to mean that the innocent spouse in a marriage has the scriptural right to divorce the offending spouse and marry another, if the offending spouse is guilty of some sexual misconduct. This sexual misconduct is referred to as adultery, is seen as ‘grounds’ for divorce in this school of Christianity, and allows the innocent party to marry someone else.

First of all, we need to understand that no unstated assumptions may be used in a proof; therefore, I will state the assumptions that I am making, as well as define my terms.

I am assuming that the reader has some idea of the various classes of truths. In particular, I am referring to truths that need no proof and truths that need proof. I stated at the beginning of my lecture that I would prove, using logic and reason, that the Matthew exception, which is commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness, is no exception at all because it leads to an absurdum. I intend to prove this to the reader as a truth. This is a truth that needs proof. But before I do this, I must remind the reader of some self-evident truths of reason that need no proof, as well as bring to your attention some basic rules of reasoning that every rational being has. In particular, the self-evident truths of reason that I am speaking of are those, which all sane men must affirm to be truth when they are presented to the mind and understood. The mathematical axioms and principles of science belong to this class of truths. And I would like to take advantage of some of the principles of informal logic commonly used in mathematics to help illustrate my point and ultimately prove my point; namely, contra-positive logic and negation. After these self-evident truths of reason are understood, they can then be used to prove a truth, which needs proof. And this is exactly what I intend to do with this lecture. I will begin by discussing theorems and proofs, and then define some terms.

A THEOREM is a conditional statement of the form:

If (hypothesis), than (conclusion).

The hypothesis implies the conclusion in this statement. We can denote the hypothesis by H, the conclusion by C, and ‘implies’ by the symbol ->. We can now represent our statement thus:

H → C

FOR EXAMPLE:

If H is the statement, (I will read this lecture). And C is the statement, (I will understand what it says).

Than H → C means:

IF I will read this lecture, THAN I will understand what it says.

A PROOF can be defined as a series of statements, each of which are justified, which leads to the desired conclusion.

NEGATION

If S is any statement, then the negation of S is denoted by ~S.
If S is the statement, “Johnny is a sinner”. Then ~S is the statement, “Johnny is a saint”.

Applying the logic of negation to our example H → C; the statement
~(H → C) means the same as H & ~C, or H and the negation of C.

If (H → C) is the statement:
(If I will read this lecture than I will understand what it says),

Then ~(H → C) would mean,
(I will read this lecture and I will not understand what it says).

CONTRA-POSITIVE LOGIC

Contra-positive logic dictates that my statement H → C has the logical equivalent
~C → ~H, and that they are logically equivalent to each other. This can be stated thus:

(H → C) <–> (~C → ~H)

Applying contra-positive logic to our example would result in the following two statements being equivalent to each other:

(If I will read the lecture than I will understand what it says) <–> (If I do not understand what it says than I have not read the lecture).

ABSURDUM

An absurdum is a statement that is a contradiction. It is a conjunction of a statement S with the negation of S, and can be denoted thus:

(S & ~S).

If S is the statement, (Johnny is a sinner). Than ~S would be the statement, (Johnny is a saint).

An absurdum would be (Johnny is a sinner and Johnny is a saint).

 

[Iwillposthere]

I will now begin by focusing on the words of Jesus Christ found in the Gospel of Matthew.

MATTHEW 19:9

“And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,”

This is the verse most often appealed to by those seeking to justify divorce and remarriage. The popular interpretation of this verse permits the innocent party in a marriage to divorce their spouse if they are guilty of adultery, and then allows the innocent party to marry another. Applying this interpretation, we could paraphrase the verse thus:

And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, (if it is not for fornication that he puts her away), and marries another, commits adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

For example, Joseph marries Mary. Mary has sexual relations with another man. Joseph finds out about it and divorces Mary. Joseph then marries Barbie. According to this school of thought, Joseph and Barbie are justified in God’s sight, and their marriage is Holy. Mary then marries Barabbas. Not so good for Mary and Barabbas. They are in adultery. If I understand them correctly, this is what is believed by the proponents of this doctrine.

What I would like to do now is examine the words of Christ found in Matthew 5:32.

MATTHEW 5:32

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Here again we find Jesus discussing the issue of marriage and divorce. However, if we apply the exception clause the same way we did in Matthew 19:9 we encounter insurmountable difficulties. As a matter of fact, I contend that if we interpret this scripture the way the proponents of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology would have us, it results in an absurdum.

This is the main focus of this lecture, to expose this so-called Matthew exception for remarriage as no exception at all, by showing that this interpretation of scripture leads to an absurdum, and therefore cannot be the correct interpretation at all; furthermore, if it does not hold true in Matthew 5:32, than it does not hold true in Matthew 19:9 either. Let us now apply this interpretation of scripture to Matthew 5:32 and paraphrase it thus:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, (unless it is for fornication that he puts her away), causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Let’s look closely at this situation and see if this is in fact what Jesus was saying:

What we have here is an, IF (this) THEN (that) statement, which is qualified by a negated prepositional phrase, or an ‘unless’ statement. If a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery, unless something else happens first, namely her fornication, which negates the original statement.

For example: Applying contra-positive logic and negation to our scenario:

Joseph marries Mary. Joseph divorces Mary. Mary marries Barabbas. Mary and Barabbas are in adultery.

Joseph marries Mary. Mary commits ‘fornication’. Joseph finds out about it and divorces Mary. Mary marries Barabbas. Mary and Barabbas ARE NOT in adultery.
Does something seem wrong with this scenario to you? I hope so. It’s absurd! But this is exactly what we must believe Jesus is teaching if we accept the Matthew exception for remarriage theology.

Once again, if we apply the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to Matthew 5:32 we get the two following possible scenarios:

DIVORCE + ~(FORNICATION) = ADULTERY

DIVORCE + (FORNICATION) = ~(ADULTERY)

According to the Matthew exception for remarriage theology, if Joseph and Mary are joined in Holy Matrimony, and then Mary commits ‘fornication’ after they are married and is then divorced by Joseph, she does not commit adultery when she marries another man! However, if she is divorced as an innocent spouse, and marries another man, she is in adultery. This represents God as rewarding the guilty. One would have to abandon all reason in order to believe this. All of scripture represents God as opposing sin. This theory represents God as rewarding sin. (God opposes sin & God rewards sin). This is an absurdum.

In order to maintain any consistency between the divorce sayings of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, the prepositional phrase that appears in both of these verses is either an ‘unless’ statement that qualifies both verses as IF (this) THAN (that) statements, or it is not a prepositional phrase at all and must be interpreted in some other way. If Matthew 19:9 is in fact an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, and the fornication clause is a negated prepositional phrase that qualifies when a man is entitled to divorce and remarry, then the fornication clause in Matthew 5:32 should be interpreted in the same way. We have seen, however, that to interpret Matthew 5:32 in this way is manifestly absurd.

 

[Iwillposthere]

The only way for the advocates of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to alleviate this difficultly is to insist that although Matthew 19:9 is an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, which is qualified by the fornication clause acting as a prepositional phrase, Matthew 5:32 is not. They insist that Matthew 5:32 doesn’t say anything directly about the guilt or innocence of the woman in question, but only addresses the conditions under which the husband would be guilty of causing his wife to commit adultery. The woman in question is guilty either way. However, what our ‘matthew exceptionaries’ would have us believe next cannot bear the weight of their argument. Not only is the man not guilty of causing his wife’s subsequent marriage to be adulterous by divorcing her, because she is already guilty of commiting the sin against himself while they were still married; but they also insist that in the case of the wife who commits adultery, the husband is then free to marry another because the wife’s fornication breaks the marriage bond between them. But if this is true, then why is his wife’s subsequent marriage adulterous??

Ladies and gentlemen, the only way her subsequent marriage could be adultery, is if her first vow was still in effect. This means her husband is still be married to her. Now, he goes off and contracts another marriage, with God’s blessing? He’s married to two women at the same time! This represents God as advocating bigamy. Once again we have an absurdum.

SUMMARY:

If adultery is defined as extra-marital sexual activity, and fornication as it is used in Matthew 5:32 is defined as sexual activity within the marriage bond; then we are left with having to interpret the verse as allowing a man to divorce his wife if she is guilty of sexual misconduct within the marriage bond, but not allowing him to contract another marriage, as well as forbidding the marriage of a divorced woman.

Any other interpretation leads to an absurd statement. It either represents God as rewarding the guilty, or it represents Him as advocating bigamy.

I have now proven, using logic and reason, that the Matthew exception commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness is no exception at all, because it leads to an absurdum.

ALTERNATIVE THEOLOGY CONSIDERED

Consider with me the possibility that the answer to the question for which we are seeking cannot be found in the verses in question, for they do not address the situation we have been considering, but something altogether different.

When Matthew 5:32 is put in its proper relation to surrounding scripture, we begin to get a clear picture of what Jesus Christ was teaching. Christ begins His reference to sexual sin in His Sermon on The Mount at verse 27, and continues on through verse 32.

MATTHEW 5:27 – 32

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In these verses we have Christ’s reference to sexual sin in His Sermon on The Mount. He begins in verse 27 by referring to the seventh commandment. He then goes on to insist that a man is guilty of violating the spirit of the seventh commandment if he just looks at a woman to lust after her. He then calls for a higher standard of righteousness.

We then see Christ addressing the Mosaic divorce precept. Now let us consider verse 32. Christ represents, once again, a situation in which a man is guilty of violating the seventh commandment; it is when he divorces his wife, or marries a woman that has been divorced. Christ indicts the man with causing his wife to commit adultery when she takes her bill of divorcement and goes and contracts another marriage. He is seen as putting the whole onus on the man for forcing her into a marriage that she would almost of necessity have had to contract in her present situation. Christ is attacking the bill of divorcement itself. In effect, He is saying that it is an adulterous thing to do. Now, the fornication clause contained in this verse is an exception for when divorce is not adulterous, and nothing more.

So here we see Christ teaching something that violates the seventh commandment that his listening audience would have never even considered; lust, unwarranted divorce and marrying a divorced woman.

Now someone will then ask why divorce is wrong if it is not always adulterous.

For the answer, we must look to Matthew chapter 19.

 

[Iwillposthere]

MATTHEW 19: 3-9

3 The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In these verses the Pharisees are seen tempting Jesus by asking Him if divorce is lawful. The principle point in discussion here is about divorce, and if Christ would permit it, nothing more.
Christ responds by declaring the marriage bond to be indissoluble. The Pharisees then appeal to Moses’ divorce precept in an attempt to justify divorce. Jesus then rebuffs their appeal to the law as little more than a concession for their hardheartedness.

So now we clearly see that divorce is wrong because Jesus said divorce was wrong. And He makes reference to His Father’s original intention in Genesis chapter 2 as the reason why - The two become one flesh and are no more twain.

And then in verse 9 we see Christ saying:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Here Matthew’s author represents Christ as restating what He had said in chapter 5:32 – that
unwarranted divorce, as well as marrying a divorced woman, is an adulterous thing to do. He then adds to this scope in Mathew 19:9, to include the man who marries another to be an adulterer as well.

Let us pull these Matthew scriptures side by side for a moment:

MATTHEW 5:32 & MATTHEW 19:9

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

It is a common literary technique of Matthew to mention a topic twice. This is can be seen throughout his Gospel with other topics as well. The divorce pericopae fits this pattern. I think it is important to recognize that Matthew anticipated his latter material in the present passage of 5:32. He seems to intend that the reader understand 19:9 in light of 5:32, as a continuation of his thoughts.

In Matthew 5:32 Christ is seen as indicting a man with causing his wife’s adultery after an unwarranted divorce.

In Matthew 19:9 Christ is seen as indicting the man himself with adultery after the unwarranted divorce of his wife.

If a man is guilty of causing his wife to commit adultery, than he is just as guilty of her sin as if he were to do it himself. This is perfectly legitimate grammatically to interpret verse 19:9 in this way with the exception phrase located where it is in the sentence. The exception applies only to the first conditional phrase, ‘put away his wife’, as it does in 5:32, and not to the second conditional phrase, ‘shall marry another’. The exception clause does not have a verb, so the one in the first conditional phrase just preceding it supplies the verb.

This would be interpreted as – Whosoever shall put away his wife, if it is not for fornication that he puts her away, commits adultery. This is consistent with Christ’s words in 5:32, where he is seen as condemning unwarranted divorce as adulterous.

The second conditional phrase, as well as the first, is governed by the word whosoever.

This would be interpreted as – Whosoever shall marry another commiteth adultery. This would represent Christ as forbidding polygamy, and it the only interpretation of these verses that I am aware of that does so. A man is guilty of adultery if he marries another, whether he divorces his wife first or not.

The exception clause does not apply to the second conditional phrase, ‘shall marry another’. If it did it would have come after both conditional phrases.

The second part of verse, 19 (b), represents Christ as forbidding the marriage of a divorced woman, just as he did in Matthew 5:32 (b).

 

[Iwillposthere]

SUMMARY:

Now, let me just summarize this part of the lecture by saying that for the advocates of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to insist that Christ was forbidding ‘divorce and remarriage’ in His interaction with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:9, is to represent Him as denying them something that they would not have even understood. This is a concept that would have been foreign to the Jewish man. He would have never conceived of having to divorce his wife so that he could then ‘remarry’ someone else. Why would he? A Jewish man could have as many wives as he could afford. The subject of ‘divorce and remarriage’ as we understand it today, was not even in the scope of the conversation. The whole passage is in response to a question concerning divorce, and when ’it’ is wrong. And the exception is only concerning when divorce is not adulterous, just as it was in Matthew 5:32, nothing more.

With a proper understanding of the divorce sayings, Christ is seen as condemning unwarranted divorce, polygamy, and marriage after divorce, all in one fell swoop.

Now, the application of the fornication clause is seen to make exception for when divorce is not adulterous. This we have clearly proven. The only thing that yet remains is to interpret the clause itself. And upon careful study, we realize that Christ’s exception for when divorce is not adulterous is when a betrothed wife is divorced for the cause of fornication.

Interpreting the clause in this way eliminates the absurdum that results when Matthew 5:32 is viewed as an IF (this) THAN (that) statement.

When Matthew 19:9 is interpreted as an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, and the fornication clause as a negated prepositional phrase that qualifies when divorce is not adulterous, then the fornication clause in Matthew 5:32 can be interpreted in the same way as well.

Matthew 5:32 can then be revealed as the IF (this) THAN (that) statement that it truly is:

Whosoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, unless it is his betrothed wife, than he does not cause her to commit adultery because she does not commit the sin. There is no one-flesh bond to violate between her and her betrothed husband. If she were to marry someone else in the future, provided she could find an understanding husband, the man who divorced her would not be guilty of causing her to commit adultery. This is all Christ was saying, and all else is a bugbear.

Furthermore, all of the confusion concerning the second part of these verses is eliminated as well. The prepositional phrase qualifies both Matthew 5:32 (b) and 19:9 (b) also.

                    THE BETROTHAL PERIOD OF ENGAGEMENT

What I would like to do now is consider the betrothal period of engagement within Jewish culture and its application to the interpretation of the fornication clause contained in the Gospel of Matthew.

In order to get a clear picture of what Matthew’s author is representing Jesus as having said in His divorce sayings, one need only refer to Matthew 1: 18-20.

MATTHEW 1: 18-20

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publik example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Notice the angel of the Lord referred to Joseph and Mary as husband and wife, even they were only espoused, or ‘engaged’. This is something that was peculiar to Jewish culture. And it is peculiar to Matthew’s Gospel as well, which gives us a clue as to how the fornication clause should be interpreted. The Jewish couple was betrothed to each other, after which they would then be considered husband and wife, with the marriage ceremony and consummation of the vow to take place some time latter, usually after a year. For a man to relieve himself of his betrothal commitment would require a legal divorce in Jewish culture. During this time if it were discovered that the damsel of Israel was not a virgin, she would be stoned to death at the door of her father’s house. Joseph and Mary faced this very dilemma. Joseph, however, was referred to as a ‘just’ man for deciding to put Mary away privately for the cause of fornication.

**The exception that Christ made for divorce was for the situation of His parents. **

The cause of fornication was something that was clearly established in the law. And any discussion concerning the divorce of a husband and wife would most assuredly include the betrothed husband and wife. This is what we see in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, when he references Moses’ divorce legislation, and then makes an exception for when divorce would not be adulterous.

And when the Pharisees are seen coming to tempt Christ in Matthew 19, once again the fornication clause is included. If it were not, then the Pharisees could have accused Christ of swindling the family of the young Jewish man out of their dowry monies, by requiring the man to marry the damsel of Israel who had misrepresented herself during the betrothal period, but was a fornicator instead.

 

[Iwillposthere]

The Pharisees were constantly looking for occasion to discredit Jesus. They even went so far as to accuse Him of being a bastard, in a backhanded kind of way, when they insisted that they were not born on fornication (but He of course was). They had been familiar with Mary’s situation, and certainly weren’t convinced of His virgin birth. They would go on to say that His father must have been a devil possessed Samaritan, and that so was He. And not being able to receive His Divinity, they would eventually try to stone Him. But Jesus hid Himself, in their very midst, and so passed by.

**FINAL CONCLUSION **

Recognizing the Jewishness of Matthew’s Gospel is key to understanding the divorce sayings.
It provides an adequate explanation of not only the fornication clause itself, but also the absence of the clause in the divorce sayings of the other Gospels. The Gospels of Mark and Luke record the divorce sayings of Christ as well; however, the fornication clause is curiously omitted from both of these Gospels. Now whether Matthew added it for clarity to his listening audience, or Mark and Luke omitted it, the result is the same. Mark and Luke were written to the Romans and the Greeks respectively, and it was not necessary to include the exception because it didn’t apply in their culture. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, this is why the fornication clause is mentioned there.

 

[diggerdomer]

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…

Is that enough or would you like more?

I think you’re missing the point. I never argues that divorce can dissolve a valid marriage. That’s why I said that link you posted earlier was of no help. It simply reiterated the same canon that we’d already been talking about and referred to divorce. I am not talking about divorce. I was also not really talking about annulments.

I was simply indicating that there are certain specific circumstances where Canon Law allows the Church to dissolve valid marriages. Which none of the references you posted contradict.

Did you read the links you posted? The last one you posted argues exactly what I have been with respect to the Pauline privilege. That’s one example of where the Church can dissolve a valid marriage. That is exactly what I originally maintained and was questioned on. Thanks for helping prove my original claim.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I was simply indicating that there are certain specific circumstances where Canon Law allows the Church to dissolve valid marriages. Which none of the references you posted contradict.

They most certainly do. The first link he provided you said that “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.” That doesn’t just mean that divorce is incapable of dissolving a valid marriage: it means that anything short of death is incapable of dissolving it. There’s no “except in ‘certain specific circumstances,’” like you’ve repeatedly asserted.

The second link he provided said of marriage that “The contract validly made and consummated is dissolved by death alone.” That’s the exact standard I gave you earlier, and the one you claim isn’t true (because there are “certain specific circumstances”). Well, now you have the *Catholic Encyclopedia *saying the same thing. You can say that you don’t believe it, but you can’t reasonably say that it agrees with you or doesn’t contradict your previous claim.

His third link said “this covenant **cannot be dissolved **so long as both parties remain alive.” Again, no “cannot, except in special circumstances.”

His fourth link is the only one dealing exclusively with annulments rather than the ability to dissolve valid marriages, and its point was to show that the annulment process isn’t an exception to the rule stated in the previous three links. Finally, his fifth link says a valid marriage “can only be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses.” That lists one condition - death - and says it is the **only **condition in which a valid marriage is dissolved. You claim there are others… how do these things not contradict?

Did you read the links you posted? The last one you posted argues exactly what I have been with respect to the Pauline privilege. That’s one example of where the Church can dissolve a valid marriage. That is exactly what I originally maintained and was questioned on. Thanks for helping prove my original claim.

It doesn’t. That last link (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272) acknowledges the Pauline Privilege, but says that a valid marriage “can **only **be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses.” Not “can only be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses or a special Pauline exception.”

Finally, if you want to cite to canon law, the canons are numbered. Signal which canon contradicts everything which all of the Catholic posters are saying to you, everything which was provided to you in the links, in the excerpts from the Catechism and from the excerpts from canon law.

And if you won’t listen to this overwhelming amount of evidence, and can proffer nothing which convinces anyone but yourself, perhaps it’s time to ask your priest about it, and ready yourself to humbly accept an interpretation you find counter-intuitive.

 

[diggerdomer]

They most certainly do. The first link he provided you said that “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.” That doesn’t just mean that divorce is incapable of dissolving a valid marriage: it means that anything short of death is incapable of dissolving it. .

What it says, and what you say it means, are two distinct things. We need to read Church teachings (which the web site we’re referring to is not, it’s helpful but not authoritative) in light of the whole of Church teaching. Read it in context. That section is talking about impediments and the paragraph (not just the one sentence you’re citing) is in the context of divorce and annulment. It does not mention the canon laws 1142 and 1143 (the Pauline and Petrine privileges).

The second link he provided said of marriage that “The contract validly made and consummated is dissolved by death alone.” That’s the exact standard I gave you earlier, and the one you claim isn’t true (because there are “certain specific circumstances”). Well, now you have the *Catholic Encyclopedia *saying the same thing. You can say that you don’t believe it, but you can’t reasonably say that it agrees with you or doesn’t contradict your previous claim.

The 1913 Catholic encyclopedia is a wonderful resource. But care needs to be taken not to rely on it without consulting Church teaching that has been promulgated since then, and of course to check the new Catholic encyclopedia to see what it says.

For instance, that same article that was referenced in the second link says:

I

t is sacred, being intended primarily by the Author of life to perpetuate His creative act and to beget children of God; its secondary ends are mutual society and help, and a lawful remedy for concupiscence.

This is no longer accurate Church teaching. See CCC 1601 for example. The Church no longer uses the strict hierarchical ordering of the ends of marriage.

Back to the topic at hand. The 2003 Catholic encyclopedia starts its entry on marriage law with:

The valid law of Matrimony found in the 1983 Code of CANON LAW, is significantly different from that of the 1917 Code.

The article also refers to some ambiguities that the 1983 Code left (which I’m assuming is at the root of much of the confusion on this thread), e.g. when it states:

e.g., the code states that all marriages are indissoluble, yet it provides ways and means to dissolve any natural marriage “for the sake of the faith”; methodologically it would have been better to speak of the indissolubility of the Christian covenant only.

So whether the 1913 encyclopedia contradicted what I’ve said is not in and of itself important, unless the Church teaches the same today as it did then. Which She doesn’t in this instance.

His third link said “this covenant **cannot be dissolved **so long as both parties remain alive.” Again, no “cannot, except in special circumstances.”

The sentence you quote is part of the article, written in Q&A form, that is explaining “Why is an annulment necessary.” It also specifically talks about sacramental marriages. I was talking neither about annulments nor sacramental marriages in my claim.

In fact, this article does address and confirm exactly what I claimed. Read further on and it says this:

If one of the spouses was not baptized during the first marriage, and the lack of baptism can be proven (provided the person applying for this process did not cause the marital breakdown), then a “Privilege of the Faith” case (or “Petrine Privilege” case) can be sent to the Holy See. If the Holy See approves, the non-sacramental marriage may then be dissolved in favor of a new marriage.

If neither of the spouses was baptized during their marriage, and now one of the spouse’s wishes to become baptized and marry a Catholic, provided one can prove the non-baptism of each former spouse, a Pauline Privilege is possible. In this situation, the diocesan bishop or his lawful representative, having established the non-baptized status of both parties, allows the non-sacramental partnership to be dissolved in favor of the new marriage. Of course, the spouse desiring baptism and the new marriage must first receive baptism.

This is a very good article. Written by canon lawyers (which the other links were not).

Perhaps some people don’t recognize the distinction between the sacramentality of a marriage and the validity of one?

Finally, his fifth link says a valid marriage “can only be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses.” That lists one condition - death - and says it is the **only **condition in which a valid marriage is dissolved. You claim there are others… how do these things not contradict?

Again, read the whole article. This article goes on later to thoroughly discuss the Pauline and Petrine privileges, which say, exactly as I claimed, that in certain circumstances valid marriages can be dissolved.

In the section on Pauline privilege it notes (what again may be at the root of some misunderstanding on this thread) that such privilege can dissolve a valid but non-sacramental marriage.

Finally, if you want to cite to canon law, the canons are numbered.

Nothing in Canon Law contradicts itself or the Catechism or Church teaching in my opinion. I am referring to Canons 1142 and 1143.

perhaps it’s time to ask your priest about it, and ready yourself to humbly accept an interpretation you find counter-intuitive.

It’s not about intuition, and I’ve confirmed this understanding with many priests. Have you? Hope the responses helped.

 

[srferdave]

Thanks Belloc. Saved me sometime of explaining.

 

[srferdave]

bbbbbb, do you think that a non-sacramental marriage is valid (in the eyes of the Church)?

If you say yes, that is where your confusion lies. A non-sacramental marriage is not valid.

 

[diggerdomer]

bbbbbb, do you think that a non-sacramental marriage is valid (in the eyes of the Church)?

If you say yes, that is where your confusion lies. A non-sacramental marriage is not valid.

Yes of course a non-sacramental marriage can be valid. That’s why non-Christians who marry and divorce would need an annulment before marrying again as a Catholic or to a Catholic.

I understand this may be non-intuitive to those not familiar with canon law, but it’s a fact.

Valid marriages between Christians are therefore sacramental. Valid marriages where one or both spouses are non-Christian are not sacramental.

 

[srferdave]

Yes of course a non-sacramental marriage can be valid. That’s why non-Christians who marry and divorce would need an annulment before marrying again as a Catholic or to a Catholic.

I understand this may be non-intuitive to those not familiar with canon law, but it’s a fact.

Valid marriages between Christians are therefore sacramental. Valid marriages where one or both spouses are non-Christian are not sacramental.

I apologize, I was wrong - i agree a non-sacramental marriage can be valid. But that still does not prove that a valid marriage can be dissolved.

 

[diggerdomer]

I apologize, I was wrong - i agree a non-sacramental marriage can be valid. But that still does not prove that a valid marriage can be dissolved.

The Pauline privilege and Petrine privileges allow for valid marriages to be dissolved under certain circumstances. See canons 1142 and 1143 of Canon Law (and, as I noted, the info in some of the articles you posted).

 

[steve_b]

The Pauline privilege and Petrine privileges allow for valid marriages to be dissolved under certain circumstances. See canons 1142 and 1143 of Canon Law (and, as I noted, the info in some of the articles you posted).

Re: 1142, If one or both baptized persons

• had no intention upfront of consumating the marriage,
• or one partner refuses to consumate blinsiding the other partner

then how is this a marriage in the first place?

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

 

[diggerdomer]

Re: 1142, If one or both baptized persons

• had no intention upfront of consumating the marriage,
• or one partner refuses to consumate blinsiding the other partner

then how is this a marriage in the first place?

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

It may or not be valid. That would need to be determined separately. The* intent* of those contracting marriage is not addressed in this canon, only the fact of non-consummation. Intent (along with numerous other considerations of impediments) could indeed mean a marriage is invalid, in which case an annulment would be appropriate. If the marriage was valid, though, obviously it cannot be annulled. The Petrine privilege could
then be potentially applied in such a circumstance.

 

[srferdave]

The Pauline privilege and Petrine privileges allow for valid marriages to be dissolved under certain circumstances. See canons 1142 and 1143 of Canon Law (and, as I noted, the info in some of the articles you posted).

OK. I humbly admit i was wrong. My confusion lied in the fact that I thought a non-Christian, non-Sacramental marriage could not be valid. It seems that this type of marriage could be valid. But I find that it is a very very small window of opportunity.

A sacramental marriage has to be valid and has to be between 2 baptized individuals. If one is not baptized it is not sacramental but could be valid. If both are not baptized it is possible for it to be valid, but I find that window of opportunity very small. The USCCB states this…

1. What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

In order for a marriage to valid their consent must be given in the presence of a properly authorized Church minister - I find this to be very unlikely from 2 unbaptized individuals. However, there are exceptions to this rule so even if this requirement is not fulfilled it is possible to still be valid.

And then if this situation actually occurs the Pauline Privilege can take affect if one of the non-baptized individuals becomes baptized.

I find this a very small window of opportunity, but nonetheless it is possible for a valid marriage to be dissolved.

This still does not change the fact that what you said in your original post…

According to the Bible passage you cite, yes. According to Catholic Church teaching the issue would be much more complex.

is still incorrect. And very misleading to the OP.

 

[diggerdomer]

But I find that it is a very very small window of opportunity.

My experience with RCIA indicates otherwise, I’d tend to think that most non-Christian marriages are presumed valid unless there are clear reasons to think otherwise.

The USCCB states this…

In order for a marriage to valid their consent must be given in the presence of a properly authorized Church minister - I find this to be very unlikely from 2 unbaptized individuals. However, there are exceptions to this rule so even if this requirement is not fulfilled it is possible to still be valid.

Where is this? Thanks. Consent is necessary for a valid marriage, yes. The presence of a Church minister, for non-Christians, is not. The USCCB is saying there what constitutes valid/invalid Catholic marriages. It’s not talking, there, about non-Catholic marriages.

This still does not change the fact that what you said in your original post…

is still incorrect. And very misleading to the OP.

Sorry if it was misleading. If the OP doesn’t understand what I meant I’d be happy to clarify. My point was that in the Bible divorce is allowed, at least under some circumstances, and certainly the Jewish tradition at the time had varying understandings of it as well.

 

[srferdave]

My experience with RCIA indicates otherwise, I’d tend to think that most non-Christian marriages are presumed valid unless there are clear reasons to think otherwise.

I can’t say anything to this since the exception lies in the hands of Church authority.

Where is this? Thanks.

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

Sorry if it was misleading. If the OP doesn’t understand what I meant I’d be happy to clarify. My point was that in the Bible divorce is allowed, at least under some circumstances, and certainly the Jewish tradition at the time had varying understandings of it as well.

I don’t think this portion of Church teaching can be summed up in this one passage.

 

[diggerdomer]

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

THanks. Note that question (and response) dealt with Catholic marriages, not non-Catholic marriages. So there’s no exception there for non-Catholic marriages, that statement doesn’t refer to non-Catholic marriages.

I don’t think this portion of Church teaching can be summed up in this one passage.

Of course not. My brevity could have been misleading, sorry again for that.