Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[Dokimas]

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

You don’t want to change a false statement even though you know it’s wrong? Doesn’t make sense to me. Oh well!!!

 

[PLeeD]

Read the passage again. Remarriage = adultery (unless I misread it).

You are “blowing off” the part where, in the same sentence, Jesus said “except for porneia”.

It seems like we are back to blowing off the words of Christ again.

Not “we”. I don’t. But in this case the Catholic church clearly does.

The Catechism in Paragraph 2386 clearly delineates the difference between the innocent party and the one who destroyed the marriage, but stops short of sanctioning what Jesus clearly allows for, i.e. remarriage for the innocent victim.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

You are correct. I was looking at it from the Catholic pov.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You don’t want to change a false statement even though you know it’s wrong? Doesn’t make sense to me. Oh well!!!

It is not false to say our seminarians do not feel they have a gun to their heads to remain celibate.

 

[cooterhein]

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.

Protestants will also make a distinction between marriage as God defines marriage and divorce as God defines divorce. In either case, it’s not a strictly civil affair. Marriage as God defines it occurs when God has joined two people together, and it works the same way for divorce. We certainly acknowledge the aforementioned passage, in that it’s not entirely up to civil authorities to separate a marriage and bring it to an end. But it is something that God can do, just as it is God who brings to people together. A few verses later, Jesus forbids Jewish men from “putting away” their wives and marrying someone else- with an exception, of course. “Except for πορνείᾳ.” In our view, this constitutes an exception to the rule where we presuppose a situation in which God has joined two people in marriage (as God defines marriage), but now God dissolves the marriage (as God defines marriage). As you mentioned earlier, Jesus does say in verse 6 that God has joined them together and to “let no man separate.” But this is not a situation where man is called upon to separate anything. God joins, and God separates. Circumstances under which God separates what God has joined are commonly known as “Biblical grounds for divorce.” The extent of these grounds depends a great deal on what you do with the word πορνείᾳ in verse 19, and because it’s so important and controversial and tricky, it’s something that nearly every seminary student interacts with pretty closely within their first couple of semesters.

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.

And those presbyters and bishops said…what? This was recorded at some point, right? Oh, and I saw what you did with the word “presbyter” there- I’m just ignoring it.

It doesn’t take many re-readings of Jesus’ words to recognize that He conspicuously does NOT simply say

There’s a near-infinite amount of things it doesn’t say.

He clearly invokes the divinely authored joining of the couple.

Would you suggest that there’s no such thing as a divinely authored separating of the couple? Say, for example, if God authors the joining but at a later time the right move for the marriage (as God defines marriage) is for God to dissolve it and separate them. Putting it to an end. Not as if it never happened, but as if it did happen and then it came to an end. What reason is there to think God doesn’t do that?

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.

And by the same token, do signatures on divorce papers FORCE God to separate two people? No, of course not. So how ARE such people separated? Surely God would have something to do with that as well?

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’ll check with my brother-in-law on that. He was married once before he married my sister. I’ll definitely ask them how they sleep at night, and I’ll also ask them if they’re able to see that question as anything but polemic.

Do you sometimes ask these same questions of Eastern Orthodox Christians when they get remarried after a divorce, or do you limit yourself to Protestants?

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants will also make a distinction between marriage as God defines marriage and divorce as God defines divorce. In either case, it’s not a strictly civil affair.

Indeed.

Marriage as God defines it occurs when God has joined two people together, -]and it works the same way for divorce. /-]We certainly acknowledge the aforementioned passage, in that it’s not entirely up to civil authorities to separate a marriage and bring it to an end.

Yes.

But it is something that God can do, just as it is God who brings to people together.

This shows an impoverished understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage, IMHO.

Ontologically, what happens during a sacramental marriage is that the couple is changed at their very essence. They become ONE. And what God has joined, no one can put asunder.

One ought to take very very seriously what one says, before God and before humanity, when one makes a* vow.*

God joins, and God separates.

No. Even God cannot separate something which is ontologically joined. It’s a nonsensical statement, and, as CS Lewis maintained, putting “God can” before nonsense does not cease to make it nonsense.

 

[Dokimas]

It is not false to say our seminarians do not feel they have a gun to their heads to remain celibate.

Okay, where’d we get lost in this discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

The Catechism in Paragraph 2386 clearly delineates the difference between the innocent party and the one who destroyed the marriage, but stops short of sanctioning what Jesus clearly allows for, i.e. remarriage for the innocent victim.

This is adding to Scripture, PLee. There is nothing that says that remarriage is allowed for the “innocent victim.”

Either it means that divorce is allowed for adultery, and both are free to marry subsequently. And any man or woman seeking to divorce one’s spouse “legitimately” only need cheat on the spouse in order to have the divorce sanctioned. :whacky:

Or it doesn’t mean divorce is allowed for adultery, but for porneia, which is illicit familial or incestual relationships.

 

[Dokimas]

This is adding to Scripture, PLee. There is nothing that says that remarriage is allowed for the “innocent victim.”

Either it means that divorce is allowed for adultery, and both are free to marry subsequently. And any man or woman seeking to divorce one’s spouse “legitimately” only need cheat on the spouse in order to have the divorce sanctioned. :whacky:

Or it doesn’t mean divorce is allowed for adultery, but for porneia, which is illicit familial or incestual relationships.

Why only two choices? There are two logical understanding and you left one out, PR. The innocent part is free, the guilty one is not. Why would Jesus give a free ride to the guilty party, forgiveness for the repentent person, but free ride, no, IMO.

 

[PRmerger]

Why only two choices? There are two logical understanding and you left one out, PR. The innocent part is free, the guilty one is not.

Well, Doki, can you please tell us where the Scriptures state that if one divorces only the innocent party is free to marry?

Chapter and verse, please.

Why would Jesus give a free ride to the guilty party, forgiveness for the repentent person, but free ride, no, IMO.

Exactly. It simply is ridiculous to think that Jesus would say, “If you commit adultery you can divorce” because that is exactly what a man/woman who wishes to divorce would think: Hey! I don’t want to be with the Mrs. anymore. I’m going to go ahead and have my fun with Ms. A and then Jesus said I’m good to divorce the Mrs.

:whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

Circumstances under which God separates what God has joined are commonly known as “Biblical grounds for divorce.”

Actually, what’s it’s known as is “death”.

At that point, the ontological change that occurs in the deceased spouse is either in a completed union with God–that for which we were created (after a purging, of course, should that be necessary) or complete disunion with Him.

 

[cooterhein]

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!

Hee hee…most of the seminarians I know are married and have kids. They’ll stay single if that’s what God calls them to, but there’s no apparent link between God’s call to seminary and God’s call to singleness.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hee hee…most of the seminarians I know are married and have kids. They’ll stay single if that’s what God calls them to, but there’s no apparent link between God’s call to seminary and God’s call to singleness.

I hope I have a part in this thread too.

If a seminarian is thinking about becoming a priest, he would stay unmarried and that’s it.

 

[cooterhein]

I hope I have a part in this thread too.

If a seminarian is thinking about becoming a priest, he would stay unmarried and that’s it.

Ahhh, that’s the thing. I don’t know any seminarians that are on their way to priesthood (in the ἱερεύς sense of the word). All of them are headed for some kind of “presbyter” role, but none of them are becoming priests that do anything with sacraments. Although I have gotten to know a couple different guys who probably should have become priests, but they decided against it when they realized they weren’t called to singleness. Which is too bad, really.

 

[pnewton]

I think I have to side with the Protestant pastors on this issue, at least from a Protestant perspective. First, as Catholics, we allow divorce and remarriage if the first marriage is deemed non-sacramental. We have a process for examining such a marriage. Protestants do not. Even as Catholics we acknowledge the* possibility* that the first marriage the pastor entered into was deficient. Therefore, in accordance to the Catechism, we have to assume the most charitable understanding of another person’s actions. This is easy for me considering…

There is at least a possibility of understanding divorce and remarriage as permissible according to Scripture. Namely, that Jesus literaly was referring only to the party that put the other away (divorced), not the party that was put away(through divorce.) This is not Catholic teaching, but it is the predominant teaching of Protestants. Therefore, their stand on marriage is at least internally consistent.

Finally, for most Protestants remarriage is not on on-going sin, even when it is sin. The man or woman commits adultery by this action, as opposed to the Catholic view where he or she is committing adultery with in the marriage. Therefore, since past sin does not prevent one from being a minister, remarriage does not prevent one from being a minister.

I just wanted to lay out a non-Catholic perspective from a Catholic. If any Protestants there think I have unfairly represented them, please feel free to correct me.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ahhh, that’s the thing. I don’t know any seminarians that are on their way to priesthood (in the ἱερεύς sense of the word). All of them are headed for some kind of “presbyter” role, but none of them are becoming priests that do anything with sacraments. Although I have gotten to know a couple different guys who probably should have become priests, but they decided against it when they realized they weren’t called to singleness. Which is too bad, really.

Then they are not ‘called’ to be priests. I did enter a post earlier on about what it means to be priests. The seven years or so in the seminary would be quite a long time to discern whether a person is called to the priesthood. Many young men start as having some intention to become one but along the way they may find out that they are called to a vocation of marriage or some other professions.

Yes, to enter the priesthood is a Sacrament and one is called to it and so it is a calling as were the disciples.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, Doki, can you please tell us where the Scriptures state that if one divorces only the innocent party is free to marry?

Chapter and verse, please.

Exactly. It simply is ridiculous to think that Jesus would say, “If you commit adultery you can divorce” because that is exactly what a man/woman who wishes to divorce would think: Hey! I don’t want to be with the Mrs. anymore. I’m going to go ahead and have my fun with Ms. A and then Jesus said I’m good to divorce the Mrs.

:whacky:

People think wrongly all the time; that doesn’t take away from truth or in this case, what Jesus said.

If you’re looking for verses, look up where Jesus spoke on the issue; it seems obviouis He’s speaking to the innocent party and He seems to imply remarriage. Couple that with Paul’s writings, a very good case is made for remarriage for a very limited # of people.

 

[mark_a]

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.

Just in case it hasn’t been mentioned yet, the Protestant cultural acceptance of contraception is, for the most part, really the root of the problem.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Okay, where’d we get lost in this discussion?

It is not false to say our seminarians do not feel they have a gun to their heads to remain celibate.

You don’t want to change a false statement even though you know it’s wrong? Doesn’t make sense to me. Oh well!!!

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

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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

People think wrongly all the time; that doesn’t take away from truth or in this case, what Jesus said.

If you’re looking for verses, look up where Jesus spoke on the issue; it seems obviouis He’s speaking to the innocent party and He seems to imply remarriage. Couple that with Paul’s writings, a very good case is made for remarriage for a very limited # of people.

I think we have to be very careful about reading into what Jesus “meant.” If you look at the homosexual threads, they take Jesus’ words to mean homosexual prositution was the sin. They claim that “committed loving unions” of homosexuals were culturally illicit.