Matt 19:3-6 meaning "must not separate"

[AnneTeresa]

I am trying to understand where the catholic church came up with its current stand on marriage/divorce/remarriage.

I hope someone can help me understand how these things have been interpreted.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19:3-6)

It says “no human being must separate”. What exactly does that mean? I know Jesus said he hates divorce and the only reason Moses allowed it was because of man’s hardness of heart. But Jesus is going beyond that saying it was not intended that way. He is giving the command here, just like any other command he gives on how to live (murder, lying, etc.)

Why does the church interpret this as different from every other command given? By that I mean that any other sin Jesus condemned is forgiveable, but the church does not forgive this one. Once divorced, unless it can be shown there was not really a marriage then are in that marriage forever and if they remarry (even if they repent later) are in sin forever. Yet one can murder, one can lie or steal (even though Jesus commands against them), and still be forgiven. I wonder where that interpretation came from since the verse states it as a command “must not separate”.

Given human nature it does happen, just like any other sin, so why can’t a person who divorced, realizes it later to be a sin, and repents, not be forgiven? I mean in cases where the marriage is clearly over and there is no way for the two spouses to reunite.

I know the church’s understanding of remarriage being ongoing adultery, but where did they come up with that? If one repents of the sin after he realizes it (adultery and remarriage), then why can’t s/he go on with their life forgiven just as with any other sin that has consequences? For example, a woman fornicates and has a child out of wedlock, the mother repents and she is forgiven and can go on living life as the child’s mother–the child is not taken from her.

Please don’t quote the catechism. I know the church teaching. I just want to understand where it came from and why.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Simple answer: keep reading! Matthew 19:9 “Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.”

A person who is validly married, divorced and remarried is committing adultery. It is not unlike other sins, it can be forgiven. If one who commits such a sin repents and leaves their adulterous path then they can forgiven just as can any other sinner. But those who remain in that adulterous marriage cannot be forgiven because they are clearly unrepentant. I don’t really understand where you are getting the idea that one who repents cannot be forgiven.

 

[Nate13]

Simple answer: keep reading! Matthew 19:9 “Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.”

A person who is validly married, divorced and remarried is committing adultery. It is not unlike other sins, it can be forgiven. If one who commits such a sin repents and leaves their adulterous path then they can forgiven just as can any other sinner. But those who remain in that adulterous marriage cannot be forgiven because they are clearly unrepentant. I don’t really understand where you are getting the idea that one who repents cannot be forgiven.

Its treated differently because its not a one time sin. It would be like if someone was stealing $10,000 dollars every day and then came in and confessed it, but didn’t actually stop stealing $10,000 dollars a day. You might be able to ask for forgiveness for individual acts, but every additional action after that is still a sin.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Simple answer: keep reading! Matthew 19:9 “Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.”

A person who is validly married, divorced and remarried is committing adultery. It is not unlike other sins, it can be forgiven. If one who commits such a sin repents and leaves their adulterous path then they can forgiven just as can any other sinner. But those who remain in that adulterous marriage cannot be forgiven because they are clearly unrepentant. I don’t really understand where you are getting the idea that one who repents cannot be forgiven.

I have the same question about this verse. It is a command. But like any other command, it is sometimes broken yet forgiven. Why not this one? I don’t think it means in all cases they are unrepentant if they have remarried. Can you explain why you (and the church) believe this?

Where do I get they are unforgiven? Because the church states (and the pope) they cannot receive sacraments.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Its treated differently because its not a one time sin. It would be like if someone was stealing $10,000 dollars every day and then came in and confessed it, but didn’t actually stop stealing $10,000 dollars a day. You might be able to ask for forgiveness for individual acts, but every additional action after that is still a sin.

Yeah, I’ve heard that but I don’t see WHY they interpret that way. It does not say “and you continue in that marriage you commit adultery every single day”. It says “if you remarry you commit adultery.” So where is that interpretation you give it coming from?

You marry someone, you find out later it was wrong, you repent. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are now with this person, just like the unwed mother now has the child. I really want to understand this.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I have the same question about this verse. It is a command. But like any other command, it is sometimes broken yet forgiven. Why not this one? I don’t think it means in all cases they are unrepentant if they have remarried. Can you explain why you (and the church) believe this?

Where do I get they are unforgiven? Because the church states (and the pope) they cannot receive sacraments.

They cannot receive the sacraments because they are in a state of mortal sin as long as they remain in that sinful state, as with any ongoing sin.

If they are repentant, then why would they stay in that sinful state? It’s like the example Nate13 gives, if someone was stealing $10,000 dollars every day and then came in and confessed it, but didn’t actually stop stealing $10,000 dollars a day then they’re still in a state of mortal sin. If one was truly repentant for a second marriage, they would leave that sinful state.

 

[AnneTeresa]

They cannot receive the sacraments because they are in a state of mortal sin as long as they remain in that sinful state, as with any ongoing sin.

If they are repentant, then why would they stay in that sinful state? It’s like the example Nate13 gives, if someone was stealing $10,000 dollars every day and then came in and confessed it, but didn’t actually stop stealing $10,000 dollars a day then they’re still in a state of mortal sin. If one was truly repentant for a second marriage, they would leave that sinful state.

How do you interpret this as a “state” rather than a “decision” one made in the past, if you can explain more?

Also, why would they stay? Maybe because of children, and a lifetime together, or because they failed once, don’t want to do it again?

 

[PerfectTiming]

Yeah, I’ve heard that but I don’t see WHY they interpret that way. It does not say “and you continue in that marriage you commit adultery every single day”. It says “if you remarry you commit adultery.” So where is that interpretation you give it coming from?

You marry someone, you find out later it was wrong, you repent. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are now with this person, just like the unwed mother now has the child. I really want to understand this.

A child isn’t a sin. A sinful action may have lead to that child but that does not make it any less the mother’s responsibility to care for that child or entrust it to someone else.

You can end that sinful relationship. That is the option, the only option for someone who is truly repentant. You are with that person illicitly and you are not free to be with them or anyone else. It is adultery and you have no obligation to that person, only to your true spouse.

 

[PerfectTiming]

How do you interpret this as a “state” rather than a “decision” one made in the past, if you can explain more?

Also, why would they stay? Maybe because of children, and a lifetime together, or because they failed once, don’t want to do it again?

Anyone who has committed a mortal sin is then in a sinful state until such a time that they repent and take Reconciliation.

 

[Nate13]

Yeah, I’ve heard that but I don’t see WHY they interpret that way. You marry someone, you find out later it was wrong, you repent. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are now with this person, just like the unwed mother now has the child.

A child is permanent. The marriage in question would not be. The only way to reverse what the unweded mother did would be to kill the child which is immoral. A marriage that the Church does not even recognize could be ended without resorting to immoral means. I know things get a whole lot more complicated on this issue, but for a couple married within the Church for their first marriage this holds because they would have been aware at the time of those vows that the commitment being made was for life.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I appreciate your help, Nate and Em, but I think I need a more in-depth explanation and references and commentaries on the scriptures involved in order to understand.

Nate, your explanation helps a little bit. You see it as an “illicit relationship”, that explains it a little. So to you “killing the relationship of the second marriage”, to use your parallel to killing the child (even if it is a lifelong commitment), is not how you see it because you think there is no relationship. Is that accurate?

An aside Nate, don’t assume that people in first-time marriage understood it to be a lifelong commitment. Re: the sinfulness, I’ve heard it said that something is not a sin if you don’t know it but once you know it, you are responsible for it. In the cases of second marriages, this is so much more complicated than that, though the principle makes logical sense. That’s why I mentioned the “consequences” to begin with.

 

[AnneTeresa]

A child isn’t a sin. A sinful action may have lead to that child but that does not make it any less the mother’s responsibility to care for that child or entrust it to someone else.

Well, the same could be said for a second marriage where there are new children, families, even grandchildren affected, to use your line of reasoning. Just saying…

 

[Nate13]

I appreciate your help, Nate and Em, but I think I need a more in-depth explanation and references and commentaries on the scriptures involved in order to understand.

Nate, your explanation helps a little bit. You see it as an “illicit relationship”, that explains it a little. So to you “killing the relationship of the second marriage”, to use your parallel to killing the child (even if it is a lifelong commitment), is not how you see it because you think there is no relationship. Is that accurate?

An aside Nate, don’t assume that people in first-time marriage understood it to be a lifelong commitment. Re: the sinfulness, I’ve heard it said that something is not a sin if you don’t know it but once you know it, you are responsible for it. In the cases of second marriages, this is so much more complicated than that, though the principle makes logical sense. That’s why I mentioned the “consequences” to begin with.

Yes it goes without saying that this is far from a cut and dry issue. I believe non-religious couples who then enter the Church are received as married even if they have had past marriages outside the Church that were divorced.

The main point I would get across though is that you can receive forgiveness for your past actions. The Church is not holding a remarried person hostage to forgiveness anymore than its holding a person hostage who repeatedly decides to fornicate. There is a lot more involved in deciding not to sin other than just coming to know it is wrong. Children within a second marriage makes things more complicated as well.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Yes it goes without saying that this is far from a cut and dry issue. I believe non-religious couples who then enter the Church are received as married even if they have had past marriages outside the Church that were divorced.

The main point I would get across though is that you can receive forgiveness for your past actions. The Church is not holding a remarried person hostage to forgiveness anymore than its holding a person hostage who repeatedly decides to fornicate. There is a lot more involved in deciding not to sin other than just coming to know it is wrong. Children within a second marriage makes things more complicated.

Actually this is not true, both your points. But back to the the initial question, I still want to find something that explains WHERE the church came up with it’s current interpretation. (I do know what that interpretation is).

Thanks.

 

[mtbender]

If I understand the question right, you have already answered it with Matt 19:3-6 and the CCC gives a good explanation on the Indissolubility of marriage. So if a person has not received an annulment, then they are bound by their original marriage. If they then decide to enter into a second marriage where they are living as husband and wife, they are living in a state of sin.
Every day they choose live as husband and wife with someone other than who God joined them with they are committing sin. The act of a second marriage in it of itself is not the issue here. It is the continued relationship – contrary to the will of God and the laws of the Church. I know you asked not to be quoted the CCC, but I think this point is relevant:

CCC 1614
The matrimonial union of man and women is indissoluble: God himself has determined it…

So if God and the Church recognize the first marriage as current and continuing, then it would be a current and continuing sin to live as husband and wife with someone else. It ”objectively contravenes God’s law” (CCC 1650).

But the Church also teaches that Reconciliation can be given by repenting and living in continence… without living as husband and wife, they are no longer in a perpetual state of sin, although they may be civilly married.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Thanks, but again, I am not asking what they teach. I am asking WHERE they get that interpretation from the scriptures–and by that I mean, given the scriptures which I’ve read, how do they connect the scriptures to what they ultimately have decided, that is, what is behind their teaching that it cannot be forgiven? Yes, it is indissoluable. But what keeps it from being forgiven? In other words, what specifically went into the laws of the church saying what they do-that this is on ONGOING sin that cannot be forgiven instead of a sin that is regrettable and has consequences but is still forgiveable?

I have never found this information and I’m hoping someone can show what is behind this church teaching.

I think what would help is a study or commentary that takes the church teaching and goes backwards to show how they came up with it. That would include explanation of how the pertinent scripture verses are interpreted.

 

[mtbender]

You already agree that the original marriage is indissoluble. With that the original marriage is current and continuous. Entering into a relationship outside that marriage would be adulterous.

One can be forgiven through Reconciliation if they repent and remain celibate. Any relation outside the original marriage – which is indissoluble – would be adulterous. So when living as husband and wife with spouse # 2 one is actively participating in an adulterous relationship. If you knowingly are going to remain in an adulterous relationship, reconciliation cannot occur.

Few point we need to look at:

• Marriage is indissoluble.
• Marital relations outside the marriage are adulterous.
• Adultery is a sin.
• The act of contrition requires “resolution not to sin again.”

If we agree on all the above, than the answer is simple… if one maintains a relationship outside the recognized marriage then they are committing adultery. This adulterous relationship puts them in a state of sin. In order to receive the Sacrament of Penance, they must resolve to stop sinning (aka: remain celibate within the new civil marriage). If they have no intent on ending that relationship, they will intentionally and knowingly recommit the same sin – and therefor have no intent to stop sinning in the first place.

Let me know where the point of confusion is on this – maybe I am over simplifying…

 

[AnneTeresa]

You already agree that the original marriage is indissoluble. With that the original marriage is current and continuous. Entering into a relationship outside that marriage would be adulterous.

I think this may be part of the struglle. If the marriage broke down and there is no way for reconciliation to occur, then how is it current and continuous?

One can be forgiven through Reconciliation if they repent and remain celibate.

Ok, where does the remaining celibate come from? The first marriage is irretrievably broken.

Any relation outside the original marriage – which is indissoluble – would be adulterous. So when living as husband and wife with spouse # 2 one is actively participating in an adulterous relationship. If you knowingly are going to remain in an adulterous relationship, reconciliation cannot occur.

Few point we need to look at:

• Marriage is indissoluble.
• Marital relations outside the marriage are adulterous.
• Adultery is a sin.
• The act of contrition requires “resolution not to sin again.”

So two sins, breaking the current marriage, make up for sinning the first time by breaking the marriage bond? I just don’t understand how they can reason that.

Also, I still don’t see where if it is meant to be indissoluble, there is no forgiveness for if that indissolubility just doesn’t happen due to sin. This is a major confusion for me. Like I said above, any other sin you can go on in life even after sinning/repenting, but not this one.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Ok, I just thought of something. Maybe you and the church are saying it IS indissoluble, whereas I am thinking it is MEANT to be indisoluble. If that is so, then how can you say it’s indisoluble when it clearly isn’t because there is no longer (or perhaps more likely) never was an indissoluble bond?

 

[fred_conty]

Ann you asked:
I am not asking what they teach. I am asking WHERE they get that interpretation from the scriptures–

And the answer is:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. One of the ten commandments.
The “coveting” goes on each day they are living together.