No divorce for fornication?

[ServantJohn]

I was told today by a Catholic that the Church will not even grant an annulment if your spouse is guilty of fornication. The following Scripture seems to say that Jesus Himself taught that divorce was allowed in the case of fornication. Now, I understand that it must be interpreted within the traditions of the church and so forth. Can someone please help me understand if what he said truly is the Catholic position and how that position is reconciled with these verses?

Matthew 19:3-9 DRB
(3) And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(4) Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:
(5) For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
(6) Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.(7) They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
(8) He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Doesn’t fornication mean pre-marital sex? Thus what Jesus said is an impediment to marriage, thus annulment, rather than divorce as we understand it today.

Sex with someone other than one’s spouse is adultery, not fornication.

 

[Loml]

If the guilty individual kept it secret and it was later revealed after vows were made then I understand why it could be grounds for an annulment. I might be wrong, I don’t know much about this stuff.

If however two people married and they were in full knowledge of the sins the other had committed, I don’t see how they can subsequently use those sins as an excuse for divorce. They knew about the situation before, if it was not an insurmountable obstacle before the marriage then how can it become one after the marriage?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think one can call it what he wants but it doesn’t answer the OP’s question. The OP is asserting that the Catholic Church, if it doesn’t grant a divorce for adultery, is in direct contradiction of what Jesus Himself says about it in the NT. Porneia, I believe, is the Greek word Jesus uses. It implies sexual perversion. I’m no Greek scholar but many think adultery is that to which He was referring. I think the OP is seeing a contradiction. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[PJM]

=ServantJohn;7685696]I was told today by a Catholic that the Church will not even grant an annulment if your spouse is guilty of fornication. The following Scripture seems to say that Jesus Himself taught that divorce was allowed in the case of fornication. Now, I understand that it must be interpreted within the traditions of the church and so forth. Can someone please help me understand if what he said truly is the Catholic position and how that position is reconciled with these verses?

Matthew 19:3-9 DRB
(3) And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(4) Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:
(5) For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
(6) Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.(7) They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
(8) He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(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.

***Different Time; Place, People and Culture. **READ MAtt. 16:15-19/***COLOR] “Bind and Loose” were Rabitical leagal terms forUnlimited Power of Govenance, and assured of IMPOSSIBILITY OF HUMAN EROR:

John.14:16 to 17 “And I [Jesus] will pray the Father,** and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, ** even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”

Only the CC can make this claim of IMPOSSIBILITY of error in her Teachings on all matters of Faith and Morals. God say’s so!

The position of the CC evolves around the fact that we are all sinners. FORGIVENESS is Charity; Charity is Love, and we are to STRIVE to be lovers.

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

John.13: 34 “A new commandment I [Jesus] give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

The Church however is not insensetive to the needs of her members. Seperation is permitted so long as neither party remarries. The right thing to do is to seek profesioanl assistance.

John 15:17-19 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world**, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.** Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. ***[19] And for their sake I [Jesus]consecrate myself, that they [Peter; future Popes and the Magistrium] also may be consecrated in truth. ***

No; it’s not easy; nor did God expect it to be:

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me

**Phil.2: **8 “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross **Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 **And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. **Luke.14: 7 **Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

I’m adding you to my daily prayer list!

God Bless you!
Pat**

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Personally, I think that an annulment should absolutely be granted in cases of adultery. Jesus said as much. Forgiveness is one thing. Putting yourself and your family in a position to be betrayed yet again, especially with all the diseases out there and the Church’s position on condoms, seems extremely foolish. The person who cheated was obviously either lying when they said their vows or incapable of making a life-long commitment of fidelity. Sounds like annulment material to me. Why should a person have to make a choice between either putting themselves and their family at risk for disease and heartache or lifelong solitude simply because they unknowingly married someone who didn’t take their vows seriously?

 

[GiveMePeace]

I was told today by a Catholic that the Church will not even grant an annulment if your spouse is guilty of fornication…Can someone please help me understand if what he said truly is the Catholic position and how that position is reconciled with these verses?

An annulment is a recognition that a marriage never existed from the beginning. No sinful action can cancel a marriage. Jesus did not establish a rule, “No divorce unless you cheat on your wife.” The rule is, “No divorce.”

To examine the scripture in question:

(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.

For reference, a Catholic translation of that verse from the US Catholic Bishop’s site:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

The misunderstanding here is one of translation. Which translation will you trust? I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and has special authority due to Apostolic succession, so I trust the Catholic translation.

Porneia, I believe, is the Greek word Jesus uses. It implies sexual perversion. I’m no Greek scholar but many think adultery is that to which He was referring.

Porneia is believed to refer to situations such as siblings marrying and other marriages considered unlawful due to the familial relationships of those involved. These couples can and should “divorce” because their marriages are “unlawful” and cannot ever be valid.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have heard multiple explanations of the meaning of this word from various theologians with rich Greek backgrounds. It seems more vague than that. Perversion and adultery are the most common meanings I have heard. Haven’t heard the sibling angle.

Porneia is believed to refer to situations such as siblings marrying and other marriages considered unlawful due to the familial relationships of those involved. These couples can and should “divorce” because their marriages are “unlawful” and cannot ever be valid.

 

[1ke]

I was told today by a Catholic that the Church will not even grant an annulment if your spouse is guilty of fornication.

I suggest you get the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will help you understand what a decree of nullity is and isn’t.

A marriage is either valid or it isn’t at the moment the vows are exchanged. A decree of nullity is a finding of fact that an impediment to a valid marriage existed when the vows were exchanged.

Committing sins in the marriage has no impact on the validity the marriage-- it’s either valid or it’s not. What these behaviors MIGHT do is cast light on an impediment that existed before the marriage.

The following Scripture seems to say that Jesus Himself taught that divorce was allowed in the case of fornication.

Divorce, yes. Remarriage, no. This is called separation while the bond remains. However, there are also multiple ways to interpret this verse including some serious issues with the Greek word porneia, which is sometimes translated as “fornication” or “adultery” or 'unchastity" but actually means “unlawful”.

The Church, who speaks definitively on faith and morals, teaches the Truth that Christ teaches that divorce and remarriage are forbidden. Only an unlawful marriage-- one with an impediment that isn’t actually a marriage at all-- can lead to a situation in which a person can marry again. That, and the death of the spouse.

 

[1ke]

Haven’t heard the sibling angle.

That is simply an example of what an unlawful marriage might be. In Roman and Greek law, marriage of close kinship was not forbidden. In Jewish law it was. Some converts had impediments to valid marriage due to consanguinty. This is one explanation of what this might mean.

 

[1ke]

Personally, I think that an annulment should absolutely be granted in cases of adultery.

I would encourage you to explore more thoroughly what a decree of nullity is or isn’t.

A valid marriage cannot be dissolved for ANY reason other than death of the spouse. Sins committed in the marriage do not make a valid marriage invalid. A marriage is either valid or it’s not at the moment the vows are exchanged.

Adultery is not “grounds” for a decree of nullity.

Jesus said as much. Forgiveness is one thing. Putting yourself and your family in a position to be betrayed yet again, especially with all the diseases out there and the Church’s position on condoms, seems extremely foolish.

The Church encourages reconciliation. But, the innocent spouse can sever conjugal relations and can separate from the offending spouse. This is called separation while the bond remains. They are not free to contract another marriage.

The person who cheated was obviously either lying when they said their vows or incapable of making a life-long commitment of fidelity.

It’s not obvious and it’s not accurate to state that this is typical or probable. There are many people who go into a marriage absolutely intending to be married for life and faithful, yet they succumb to an affair for one of many reasons. This person’s sin and failure does not make their marriage invalid.

Sounds like annulment material to me.

In some cases, certainly. But not all

Why should a person have to make a choice between either putting themselves and their family at risk for disease and heartache or lifelong solitude simply because they unknowingly married someone who didn’t take their vows seriously?

Because marriage is for life and that’s what God expects of us.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It’s not obvious and it’s not accurate to state that this is typical or probable. There are many people who go into a marriage absolutely intending to be married for life and faithful, yet they succumb to an affair for one of many reasons. This person’s sin and failure does not make their marriage invalid.

I would think that when a person breaks every single marriage vow that they made (love, honor, cherish, obey), that a valid marriage could never have taken place. I would think it along the lines of deception at the time of marriage. When you make those vows, you are stating that you will never break them, for any reason, EVER. If you do, you are a liar, and you WERE a liar at the time of the marriage, period, unless you were somehow confused about the vows. We all know what the vows mean. We ALL know that they mean that you will be faithful for life, NO MATTER WHAT, meaning that there is NO foreseeable circumstance under which you will break your vows. You are promising before God that if your spouse becomes totally paralyzed, has a traumatic brain injury that completely changes their personality, lapses into a 30 year coma, or just becomes cold and distant, that you will remain faithful, sexually and emotionally, for the rest of your life. If you ever, in the course of the marriage, break these vows, then you were lying from the moment you took those vows because you knew the score when you made those promises. Thus, no marriage existed.

 

[davidv]

I would think that when a person breaks every single marriage vow that they made (love, honor, cherish, obey), that a valid marriage could never have taken place.

You think wrongly, the validity of marriage is based on the conditions at the time the promises were made. Latter developments do not affect validity. Your wish that it be otherwise is contrary to Church teaching.

I would think it along the lines of deception at the time of marriage. When you make those vows, you are stating that you will never break them, for any reason, EVER.

At the time of the vows, don’t you think that is the sincere intent of both parties?

If you do, you are a liar, and you WERE a liar at the time of the marriage, period, unless you were somehow confused about the vows.

Violating your vows does not make you a liar retroactively.

We all know what the vows mean. We ALL know that they mean that you will be faithful for life, NO MATTER WHAT, meaning that there is NO foreseeable circumstance under which you will break your vows. You are promising before God that if your spouse becomes totally paralyzed, has a traumatic brain injury that completely changes their personality, lapses into a 30 year coma, or just becomes cold and distant, that you will remain faithful, sexually and emotionally, for the rest of your life. If you ever, in the course of the marriage, break these vows, then you were lying from the moment you took those vows. No marriage existed.

Abosolutely not true.

 

[ServantJohn]

The OP is asserting that the Catholic Church, if it doesn’t grant a divorce for adultery, is in direct contradiction of what Jesus Himself says about it in the NT.

I am not saying it is, but appears to be. I simply went by the strongs definition of the word used:

πορνεία
porneia
por-ni’-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

***Different Time; Place, People and Culture. **READ MAtt. 16:15-19/*****COLOR] “Bind and Loose” were Rabitical leagal terms forUnlimited Power of Govenance, and assured of IMPOSSIBILITY OF HUMAN EROR:

John.14:16 to 17 “And I [Jesus] will pray the Father,** and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, ** even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”

Only the CC can make this claim of IMPOSSIBILITY of error in her Teachings on all matters of Faith and Morals. God say’s so!

The position of the CC evolves around the fact that we are all sinners. FORGIVENESS is Charity; Charity is Love, and we are to STRIVE to be lovers.

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

John.13: 34 “A new commandment I [Jesus] give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

The Church however is not insensetive to the needs of her members. Seperation is permitted so long as neither party remarries. The right thing to do is to seek profesioanl assistance.

John 15:17-19 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world**, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.** Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. ***[19] And for their sake I [Jesus]consecrate myself, that they [Peter; future Popes and the Magistrium] also may be consecrated in truth. ***

No; it’s not easy; nor did God expect it to be:

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me

**Phil.2: **8 “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross **Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 **And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. **Luke.14: 7 **Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

I’m adding you to my daily prayer list!

God Bless you!
Pat

I was not attacking the Roman Catholic view. I wasn’t even sure if that actually was the Roman Catholic view. I was simply asking if that is their view, and how did they come to it in light of the verse I provided? I think you are saying it is their view and a lot of other stuff that really did not apply. Is the Roman Catholic position a dogma? The Catholic I talked to said it wasn’t.
GiveMePeace;7686019:

An annulment is a recognition that a marriage never existed from the beginning. No sinful action can cancel a marriage. Jesus did not establish a rule, “No divorce unless you cheat on your wife.” The rule is, “No divorce.”

Don’t put words in my mouth. I have never cheated on my wife of almost 13 years, and she has never cheated on me. Neither of us plan to either. That is a complete and could be argued blatant misrepresentation of what the verses seem to be saying. The idea I got from the verses is that the innocent person was free to divorce and remarry, not that the guilty party could ever remarry again.

To examine the scripture in question:

For reference, a Catholic

translation of that verse from the US Catholic Bishop’s site:

The misunderstanding here is one of translation. Which translation will you trust? I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and has special authority due to Apostolic succession, so I trust the Catholic translation.

Seriously? Did you not see the DRB? That stands for Douay-Rheims Bible which is a Catholic translation. The translation you linked to appears to be a paraphrase whereas the Douay-Rheims Bible seems to be more of a literal translation. This is evidenced in the fact that porneia is not rendered in the “translation” you referenced at all. So don’t attack me based on the translation I provided please.

Porneia is believed to refer to situations such as siblings marrying and other marriages considered unlawful due to the familial relationships of those involved. These couples can and should “divorce” because their marriages are “unlawful” and cannot ever be valid.

Thank you for this information. Finally something that actually applied to what I said and made sense. Not that it is the actual basis for the Roman Catholic position but it starts to make sense here.

 

[1ke]

I would think that when a person breaks every single marriage vow that they made (love, honor, cherish, obey), that a valid marriage could never have taken place. I would think it along the lines of deception at the time of marriage. When you make those vows, you are stating that you will never break them, for any reason, EVER.

Yeah, we tell Jesus the same thing in the confessional too. And, yet, there we are again in the confessional after having sinned.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Yeah, we tell Jesus the same thing in the confessional too. And, yet, there we are again in the confessional after having sinned.

That’s what makes HIM Jesus and me just a person. Also, we ALL know when we walk out of the confessional that we will eventually find ourselves back there. We promise to avoid sin and the occasion for it, but we don’t promise never to sin again. That would be stupid.

 

[1ke]

That’s what makes HIM Jesus and me just a person. Also, we ALL know when we walk out of the confessional that we will eventually find ourselves back there. We promise to avoid sin and the occasion for it, but we don’t promise never to sin again. That would be stupid.

I think you are a bit confused on what firm ammendment of purpose is, because that is exactly what we promise-- not to sin again.

Your reply is merely a demonstration of my point, not a refutation of it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You think wrongly, the validity of marriage is based on the conditions at the time the promises were made. Latter developments do not affect validity. Your wish that it be otherwise is contrary to Church teaching.

At the time of the vows, don’t you think that is the sincere intent of both parties?

Violating your vows does not make you a liar retroactively.

Abosolutely not true.

I have to disagree with you AND the Church here. I don’t remember the part of the vows that says, “…unless I turn into a total douchebag when I hit 40 and need to validate my sexual attractiveness by means of sleeping with as many 18-year-old girls as I possibly can.”

Unless a person can legitimately claim that they did not understand the ramifications of the vows at the time they were making them, then there is no excuse for infidelity, and you WERE in fact, lying about being able to promise yourself to one person for the rest of your life.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I think you are a bit confused on what firm ammendment of purpose is, because that is exactly what we promise-- not to sin again.

Your reply is merely a demonstration of my point, not a refutation of it.

We are all sinners. We can’t NOT sin. The Bible even says so. A firm purpose of amendment means that we intend, resolve, at that moment, to change and to avoid sin as best we can. We know as sinners that it is impossible never to sin again. This is why we have the sacrament of reconciliation. The RESOLVE is the key here. It is not a vow; it is not a promise, but an act of the will…a change of heart; a decision; a resolution. It is the INTENT that matters in confession, not so with marriage. We are not saying “I intend right now to be faithful, but ya never know, wink, wink.” We are saying “I WILL be faithful”…period. There are no qualifiers. We don’t go into marriage knowing that the vows we are making are impossible to keep. On the contrary, we go in knowing that it is quite possible to go one’s entire life without breaking those vows, and promising to do exactly that. That is the promise we make at the altar.

How many people would choose to get married if their future spouse said, “Well, I INTEND to be faithful, but we all know that’s pretty much impossible…”? Not me.

 

[ServantJohn]

I have done some research on what the early church fathers taught and they seemed divided on the issue of whether or not a divorce should be granted. Some actually believed a divorce was not only allowable but commanded! They were much more unified on the belief that even if your spouse was unfaithful, you could not remarry. The two reasons I saw were:

1. You were not to remarry so that your unfaithful spouse would have the opportunity to do penance (come back) if they repented.
2. Since someone could be tempted to lie about their spouse in order to get a divorce and marry another, the option of remarriage was taken away.