Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[qui_est_ce]

I know I’m not going to persuade you that we’re looking at a ‘rose’. If those seminarians have to pledge celebacy to be a priest, it’s a rose, which for those that believe they are called to be a priest, it’s a gun.

Why in the world would you say that seminarians view the call as a “gun?” Our seminary in St. Louis is growing by leaps and bounds. I personally know many of the seminarians. They are holy young men who embrace their call. I doubt they would characterize the call as a gun. Sex, marriage, and children are not the be all and end all of a Catholic. Catholics consider the call to be single a vocation, just as is the call to the religious life or to married life.

The Church is the bride, the priest, in Alter Christus is the groom.

 

[Dokimas]

Why in the world would you say that seminarians view the call as a “gun?” Our seminary in St. Louis is growing by leaps and bounds. I personally know many of the seminarians. They are holy young men who embrace their call. I doubt they would characterize the call as a gun. Sex, marriage, and children are not the be all and end all of a Catholic. Catholics consider the call to be single a vocation, just as is the call to the religious life or to married life.

The Church is the bride, the priest, in Alter Christus is the groom.

Sorry I didn’t word it too well. The fact they MUST remain celebate (not marry) is the gun.

 

[Sister_Amy]

just to add to what PR said. divorce was given, due to the hardness of their hearts. do you not find it good, that Jesus, put many more restrictions on it? especially in an age, when if a woman did not have a husband, her options were very limited. and quite frightning too. what is wrong with Christ, putting more value on Marriage, and also women? Peace

No. I think that telling women they aren’t allowed to get divorced limits their options. That’s what left women powerless for centuries in Christendom, I think.

This whole thread really makes it clear how the Catholic Church sees women as inferior.

 

[PRmerger]

No. I think that telling women they aren’t allowed to get divorced limits their options. That’s what left women powerless for centuries in Christendom, I think.

This whole thread really makes it clear how the Catholic Church sees women as inferior.

Jesus, and the Catholic Church don’t tell women they can’t divorce, Sister Amy.

 

[PRmerger]

This whole thread really makes it clear how the Catholic Church sees women as inferior.

How so? Have you read anything that Pope JPII wrote regarding the feminine genius?

Did you know that the CC proposes that Mary, a woman, is the Mother of God?

 

[Reuben_J]

I know I’m not going to persuade you that we’re looking at a ‘rose’. If those seminarians have to pledge celebacy to be a priest, it’s a rose, which for those that believe they are called to be a priest, it’s a gun…

Sorry I didn’t word it too well. The fact they MUST remain celebate (not marry) is the gun.

Probably in your mind you are equating the priesthood (Catholic priests) to Protestant Pastors. As a Protestant you may not understand what it means to be a Catholic priest or a call to the priesthood. In any case this is my impression when I discuss this issue with Protestants.

As has been mentioned, priesthood is a vocation. A priest is not just a rector of a church and manages the church’s daily business or saying mass, but it is a vocation just like marriage is a vocation. Both the state of being married and being single for the Lord are vocation and one is only called to one’s vocation. Such is the importance of marriage and being single for the Lord, the latter includes priesthood. If the word of Jesus is any indicator, being single for the Kingdom is even more important perhaps because probably it is more difficult to live out.

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Paul seems to support that by saying, He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (7:38).

Thus when a man is called to the priesthood he is called to live a vocation. A vocation is sacred and when a man is certain of this (through much discernment) he will happily accept it and thinks it is only the right thing to do and what it entails. There is no force required in priesthood nor a priest feels that he has to sacrifice marriage. Of course many young men take up priesthood for the wrong reason and often times these may encounter problem in the course of their priesthood but OTOH we can always trust the Lord for the extra measure of grace to strengthen his priests.

Now one does not have to be a priest if he wants to do the job of a pastor. In the CC there are many avenues where a man can serve the Church and the Lord and yet still be married.

 

[cooterhein]

I don’t mean to be polemic, but are you saying that protestants are just blowing Jesus off when He declares that “what God has joined together, let no man tear apart…?”

Of course not, that’s ridiculous. For future reference, Protestants are never in the habit of “just blowing Jesus off.”

You seem to be essentially saying “yeah, but Jesus couldn’t really have meant that, so we’re going to ignore it.”

Of course He meant it. And no, we don’t just ignore certain parts of Scripture. Scripture is all we have (in terms of religious material that came about via divine inspiration). We are accurately described as “people of the book” (at least as an ideal). You, not as much. (CCC, para. 108).

Or are you saying that protestants read that gospel text differently somehow?

We don’t reach the same conclusions, so something about the process is probably a little different. More specifically, we don’t reach the conclusion that the force of Jesus’ message is such that it should compel Christian divorcees to seek an annulment that would retroactively invalidate the marriage from the beginning. A lot of it probably has to do with differing perspectives on “marriage as sacrament” as well. In that our perspective doesn’t include sacraments.

When was it, exactly, that the practice of retroactive annulments got started? Was it done in certain parts of the world but not others? Do you have a similar or different approach when you see the principle of eikonomia carried out in the EOC? Those are the kinds of questions I’m interested in.

I’ll grant you that the catholic line of thinking gets (literally) byzantine on this subject, but isn’t that at least TRYING to apply Scriptural concepts justly?

Of course that’s what you’re doing. If you say you’re trying to apply Scriptural concepts justly, then that’s what you’re doing. Unless there’s other people doing it for you and you depend on them, in which case that’s what they’re doing.

 

[PRmerger]

We are accurately described as “people of the book” (at least as an ideal). You, not as much. (CCC, para. 108).

Indeed.

Catholics are people of the Word, the Divine Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ–the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

In that our perspective doesn’t include sacraments.

Well, some of the tens of thousands of denominations don’t “include sacraments”, but some of the tens of thousands of denominations do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry I didn’t word it too well. The fact they MUST remain celebate (not marry) is the gun.

I know that’s what you were referring to. My post stands.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I just wanted to open a friendly discussion about what you guys think about a leader of a church getting married. Obviously it is widely known that Catholic priests generally do not marry (and certainly do not divorce or remarry). For a long time I thought this seemed unfair (the getting married part, not the divorcing part). I thought, how could a priest counsel married men and women if he has never experienced this? Surely a married priest could understand his congregation better.

Then I met a very kind and knowledgeable United Methodist Pastor who was not only married, divorced, and remarried but also a woman. I respect this woman, and I have attended many of her church services. She does well with her work, and I do not doubt her faith. However, it is hard for me to see her as role model. I do not know the reasons for her divorce, and I know the Methodists do not view divorce in the same way as Catholics. However, I personally believe marriage is a contract between two people to love each other unconditionally and remain together until death. If you don’t think you can do this, you shouldn’t get married in the first place. I understand that people get divorced every day, and there are many good reasons. However, I believe that if you love someone when you are married, you can work things out in almost every situation.

So I guess the question is, should someone who has been divorced and remarried be a Pastor? To me a pastor or a priest is a man or woman of God, someone who is to lead a pure life and set an example for the congregation, the people who look up to them.

I would say it’s hard to judge unless you know all the ins and outs of her marriage and what was involved with her divorce.

 

[manualman]

Of course not, that’s ridiculous. For future reference, Protestants are never in the habit of “just blowing Jesus off.”

Of course He meant it. And no, we don’t just ignore certain parts of Scripture. Scripture is all we have (in terms of religious material that came about via divine inspiration). We are accurately described as “people of the book” (at least as an ideal). You, not as much. (CCC, para. 108).

We don’t reach the same conclusions, so something about the process is probably a little different. More specifically, we don’t reach the conclusion that the force of Jesus’ message is such that it should compel Christian divorcees to seek an annulment that would retroactively invalidate the marriage from the beginning. A lot of it probably has to do with differing perspectives on “marriage as sacrament” as well. In that our perspective doesn’t include sacraments.

When was it, exactly, that the practice of retroactive annulments got started? Was it done in certain parts of the world but not others? Do you have a similar or different approach when you see the principle of eikonomia carried out in the EOC? Those are the kinds of questions I’m interested in.

Of course that’s what you’re doing. If you say you’re trying to apply Scriptural concepts justly, then that’s what you’re doing. Unless there’s other people doing it for you and you depend on them, in which case that’s what they’re doing.

Thanks for the discussion. I KNOW y’all as a principle never “blow off” Scripture, which is why I sought perspective like yours. Can you tell me how you DO read that passage? The catholic interpretation makes sense to me: some people that seem to have been married perhaps never really were as GOD defines marriage. Therefore, God never joined them, so Jesus’ command prohibiting divorce doesn’t apply where there never really was a divinely instituted marriage. That actually makes sense and also potentially explains why Jesus chose such a long winded response to the question.

When did it start? I’m no scholar, but my guess is that it got started the first time a christian couple putatively married recognized horrendous flaws in their relationship and sought the (name removed by moderator)ut of the presbyters (priests) and bishops on the problem. It doesn’t take many re-readings of Jesus’ words to recognize that He conspicuously does NOT simply say “Anyone who marries is married for life and he who divorces and remarries commits adultery.” He clearly invokes the divinely authored joining of the couple. That logically raises the question: does saying “I do” FORCE God to join two people? Of course not. Then how ARE they really joined in marriage? It needed discerning.

How does a protestant who has divorced and remarried read that passage and sleep at night? It’s not a polemic question, I really want to know!

 

[PLeeD]

How does a protestant who has divorced and remarried read that passage and sleep at night? It’s not a polemic question, I really want to know!

I sleep well.

My first wife committed adultery, then abandoned me, and filed for divorce from me, all while I did my best to reconcile. Per Jesus’ own words my case fits into His exception. I don’t need no stinkin’ annulment from her psychopathy.

As for divorce for any other reason that doesn’t fit into Jesus’ exception, I don’t know how people justify that. I can’t, and if divorced outside of that exception would expect to remain unmarried from then on.

But, the AoG will not reject a couple who have been divorced and remarried outside the exception that Jesus’ allowed. I guess the AoG figures it’s for God to sort out, and not for them to reject sinners from fellowship. AFAIK that’s generally the protestant view; not approving of unwarranted divorce and remarriage, but not rejecting the people who are improperly divorced and remarried.

Maybe that’s something like “hating the sin but loving the sinner”?

 

[pismopal]

No. I think that telling women they aren’t allowed to get divorced limits their options. That’s what left women powerless for centuries in Christendom, I think.

This whole thread really makes it clear how the Catholic Church sees women as inferior.

Wow…sometimes I wonder if muslims have any…I said any…sense of irony:shrug: Sister…with all due respect…you know nothing, apparently,absolutely nothing about the Church.

 

[gcnuss]

How does a protestant who has divorced and remarried read that passage and sleep at night? It’s not a polemic question, I really want to know!

I can’t answer from personal experience (my wife and I have been married for 40 years and we fully expect to remain married as long as we both are alive). However, I suspect that the conditions under which a divorce happens could affect the way a divorced person perceives their status.

In our society, it is possible for one partner in a marriage to sue for divorce, and have the divorce granted, without the other partner’s approval. Sadly, this happens far more often than we might realize. It happened to my sister – by the time she was involved in the proceedings it was merely to arrive at a settlement. From what I understand, she could have contested the divorce but that would only have prolonged the process (and funneled more money into some lawyers’ pockets).

On the other hand, those who choose to abandon a marriage because they see greener pastures on the other side of the fence ought to have troubled consciences but, because they seem themselves as getting what they deserve, probably do not.

I do not believe for a minute that our Lord is happy with the way people enter into marriage with the idea that divorce is there if all is not as they expected it to be. At the same time, I doubt seriously that he would insist that a person remain in a marriage where they are unloved and, perhaps, even in physical danger. And I am further convinced that he would not insist that a party who left such a marriage remain single forever after.

 

[manualman]

I can’t answer from personal experience (my wife and I have been married for 40 years and we fully expect to remain married as long as we both are alive). However, I suspect that the conditions under which a divorce happens could affect the way a divorced person perceives their status.

In our society, it is possible for one partner in a marriage to sue for divorce, and have the divorce granted, without the other partner’s approval. Sadly, this happens far more often than we might realize. It happened to my sister – by the time she was involved in the proceedings it was merely to arrive at a settlement. From what I understand, she could have contested the divorce but that would only have prolonged the process (and funneled more money into some lawyers’ pockets).

On the other hand, those who choose to abandon a marriage because they see greener pastures on the other side of the fence ought to have troubled consciences but, because they seem themselves as getting what they deserve, probably do not.

I do not believe for a minute that our Lord is happy with the way people enter into marriage with the idea that divorce is there if all is not as they expected it to be. At the same time, I doubt seriously that he would insist that a person remain in a marriage where they are unloved and, perhaps, even in physical danger. And I am further convinced that he would not insist that a party who left such a marriage remain single forever after.

Then why did Jesus SAY that?? Read the passage again. Remarriage = adultery (unless I misread it). It seems like we are back to blowing off the words of Christ again. I agree that it is crucial in some cases to separate in abusive circumstances, but Jesus’ words don’t seem to leave any wiggle room for remarriage. Life is hard sometimes and we’re simply ignoring Scripture if we think that a brutally hard situation we find ourselves in means we can rewrite the rules to make it easier on ourselves.

If there is a ‘way out’ it MUST be one that is consistent with what Jesus said plainly. The only Scripture - compatible answer I come up with is maybe something was lacking in that marriage from the begining such that God never DID join them together.

 

[Erich]

Sorry I didn’t word it too well. The fact they MUST remain celebate (not marry) is the gun.

I know that’s what you were referring to. My post stands.

As does mine. My point was that no one is holding guns to seminarians’ heads saying “if you don’t get ordained I’m going to shoot,” just like no one is holding guns to couples’ heads saying “if you don’t get married I’m going to shoot” (at least, I haven’t heard of any “shotgun weddings” recently)

Seminarians know that their choice means a lifetime of celibacy, and yet they still – willingly – make that choice! Couples know that their choice means (or is supposed to mean) “til death do us part,” and yet they still – willingly – make that choice!

 

[gcnuss]

If there is a ‘way out’ it MUST be one that is consistent with what Jesus said plainly. The only Scripture - compatible answer I come up with is maybe something was lacking in that marriage from the begining such that God never DID join them together.

I think I agree with you here. And, certainly, the Catholic process for issuing a decree of nullity is a way to deal with that issue. The only question I might raise is whether or not the actions of one party in a marriage wouldn’t automatically nullify the marriage without a decision by the Church.

 

[manualman]

I think I agree with you here. And, certainly, the Catholic process for issuing a decree of nullity is a way to deal with that issue. The only question I might raise is whether or not the actions of one party in a marriage wouldn’t automatically nullify the marriage without a decision by the Church.

Thanks. That is an approach I can understand and seems consistent with the protestant distaste for authoritative church decisions. Where I get really confused is with protestants who dispute the catholic idea of putative marriages that never really were marriages as God defines the word (and Jesus was speaking of in the text). If they reject the idea of some putative marriages being null from the very begining, I can’t see how they can reconcile that bit of Scripture.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think I agree with you here. And, certainly, the Catholic process for issuing a decree of nullity is a way to deal with that issue. The only question I might raise is whether or not the actions of one party in a marriage wouldn’t automatically nullify the marriage without a decision by the Church.

Hi Pastor Gary-
Catholics presume a marriage is valid until proven otherwise. It’s not the “actions” of one party as much as a party not being completely honest entering the marriage (such as promising to raise children Catholic, with no intention of doing that). Also, I believe civil marriages are automatically considered as not valid.

 

[manualman]

Also, I believe civil marriages are automatically considered as not valid.

I’m not so sure. I think that’s only if one party to the ‘civil marriage’ is catholic, meaning he’s obligated to know better and blowing off his obligation constitutes a defect preventing a marriage. Two non catholics marrying in front of a judge or ship captain with the full intent of being ‘joined together by God’ I think is presumed to be a valid marriage unless later examination of circumstances finds some other preventing defect.