Protestants and remarriage after divorce

[The_Iambic_Pen]

A Protestant friend of mine married several years ago. She divorced after a fairly short amount of time. Apparently her husband was unfaithful to her, and not even that long after the honeymoon. Time passed, and she has now remarried. As she is not Catholic, and to my knowledge, her new husband is not Catholic, it would probably not have entered either of their minds to seek an annulment for her first marriage. From a Catholic perspective, would it be inappropriate for me to rejoice in her new marriage and to congratulate her, as her first marriage is still assumed to be in effect?

As someone who is considering the Catholic Church, I am quite torn about this particular situation, as well as others like it. With my extremely limited knowledge of what went on (and it is not remotely my business to pry into the situation further), it seems that a case could be made that her first husband did not enter into the marriage with the right intent. Perhaps the Catholic Church would make a declaration of nullity, and I could congratulate her on what is actually her first marriage? However, as this declaration of nullity will likely never be sought (unless, God willing, they are both drawn to the Church), it seems that we must err on the side of her pre-existing marriage and assume that this new union is adulterous.

Any thoughts?

 

[just_came_back]

Remember, that as a non-Catholic, she is ignorant of the marriage as a sacrament concept. I don’t mean that in a bad way, she just doesn’t know. Now, if she ever gained such knowledge and then did nothing, then yes, per scripture and teaching, she is living in adultery.

Protestants do not place marriage as a sacrament which is TRULY sad.

 

[puzzleannie]

A As someone who is considering the Catholic Church, I am quite torn about this particular situation, as well as others like it. With my extremely limited knowledge of what went on (and it is not remotely my business to pry into the situation further), it seems that a case could be made that her first husband did not enter into the marriage with the right intent.

you have answered your question.
when it comes to the marriage situations of other people, we cannot have the knowledge required to even attempt any kind of judgement. That is why these cases are investigated in a formal way through due process when someone does seek to answer the question of validity of a former marriage. The average Christian, in charity, is obliged to put the kindest, most generous construction possible on any situation in which he observes others, and that includes marriage. We assume any given married couple is validly married unless and until it is proven otherwise. Only when it becomes our direct responsibility, such as helping someone prepare for initiation sacraments, or when someone asks our advice on remarriage for instance, are we obliged to imprt full Church teaching on the subject, and to assist them getting the proper pastoral counsel from the Church.

 

[Edward_H]

fwiw.

A neat principle that I learned from my cousin, a Dominican priest, has to do with the Church’s position regarding remarriage after divorce.

A remarriage places a near permanent (excepting death of one of the remarried parties) barrier to reconciliation. The Church needs to be against any such structural barriers to reconciliation, in the model of forgiveness that Christ teaches us.

When I heard that it all made so much sense. Remarriage is seen as a deliberate barrier to reconciliation, however impossible, remote it may seem to us.

A divorce, unlike our popular culture believes it is, is NOT an undoing of a marriage. It’s a “state” that the marriage has gone in to.

fwiw.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A Protestant friend of mine married several years ago. She divorced after a fairly short amount of time. Apparently her husband was unfaithful to her, and not even that long after the honeymoon. Time passed, and she has now remarried. As she is not Catholic, and to my knowledge, her new husband is not Catholic, it would probably not have entered either of their minds to seek an annulment for her first marriage. From a Catholic perspective, would it be inappropriate for me to rejoice in her new marriage and to congratulate her, as her first marriage is still assumed to be in effect?

As someone who is considering the Catholic Church, I am quite torn about this particular situation, as well as others like it. With my extremely limited knowledge of what went on (and it is not remotely my business to pry into the situation further), it seems that a case could be made that her first husband did not enter into the marriage with the right intent. Perhaps the Catholic Church would make a declaration of nullity, and I could congratulate her on what is actually her first marriage? However, as this declaration of nullity will likely never be sought (unless, God willing, they are both drawn to the Church), it seems that we must err on the side of her pre-existing marriage and assume that this new union is adulterous.

Any thoughts?

Marriage has many definitions in the devine state marriage is: 1) lifelong, 2) a state of unity( fully bonded), and 3) ordered to procreation. Compare that to civil marriage which is: two people list on a state record as married. Just something for your thoughts.

 

[PLeeD]

How can the exception here be ignored?:

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Seems that this applies to the couple mentioned by the OP. It also applies to me. My first wife committed adultery, abandoned me, and refused extended reconciliation attempts. I re-married a woman who was widowed.

Would you condemn me for this?

 

[Bookcat]

How can the exception here be ignored?:

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Seems that this applies to the couple mentioned by the OP. It also applies to me. My first wife committed adultery, abandoned me, and refused extended reconciliation attempts. I re-married a woman who was widowed.

Would you condemn me for this?

We are not in the business of “condemning”…

A valid marriage between two validly baptized Christians …can not be undone by ANYONE or anything…except death.

It is actually not ignored…

The verse in question is about what we call the “Pauline privilege”

When two unbaptized persons are married (natural marriage) and one is then baptized and thus becomes a Christian …and the unbaptized person is not willing to live with them in peace…in which case it is possible for the Church to apply this principle …

Adultery per se etc does not dissolve any marriage…otherwise…anyone could just commit adultery and then marry the new person afterwards…or someone else

and thus the “til death do we part” would be meaningless…

(Otherwise… a marriage can be investigated etc…to see if it was invalid…and thus an annulment may be in order declaring that it was never a marriage…)

 

[Bookcat]

A Protestant friend of mine married several years ago. She divorced after a fairly short amount of time. Apparently her husband was unfaithful to her, and not even that long after the honeymoon. Time passed, and she has now remarried. As she is not Catholic, and to my knowledge, her new husband is not Catholic, it would probably not have entered either of their minds to seek an annulment for her first marriage. From a Catholic perspective, would it be inappropriate for me to rejoice in her new marriage and to congratulate her, as her first marriage is still assumed to be in effect?

As someone who is considering the Catholic Church, I am quite torn about this particular situation, as well as others like it. With my extremely limited knowledge of what went on (and it is not remotely my business to pry into the situation further), it seems that a case could be made that her first husband did not enter into the marriage with the right intent. Perhaps the Catholic Church would make a declaration of nullity, and I could congratulate her on what is actually her first marriage? However, as this declaration of nullity will likely never be sought (unless, God willing, they are both drawn to the Church), it seems that we must err on the side of her pre-existing marriage and assume that this new union is adulterous.

Any thoughts?

Am I going to “celebrate” a second marriage between Protestants acting in good conscience??? (Thinking they are doing well…even though their spouse has not died???)

Much could be said…here goes a few lines…

It is a question of truth. And actually of love. above all of my following Jesus.

of not approving something that God does not approve…

so if it is going to be an invalid marriage…I cannot approve such…

(even if subjectively the persons thinks they are doing well…I do not judge their guilt…)

I will love or respect the persons involved but …I would not be able to “Judge” the first marriage…but will presume it is was a marriage. The Church presumes the validity of such marriages outside the Church (unless… say one was already married! or they are brother and sister etc )

And perhaps…I will explain the seriousness of marriage and of Jesus’s teaching on this…and explain that they are loved etc by me…not judged etc…and if there is some reason why it really seems that the first marriage is invalid…or they think there is…I can mention that they could seek an annulment from the Catholic Church…

In any case I will emphasize for example when they confront me… that I if I lied to them and celebrated the second marriage…then I would offending against our relationship…and above all God…by the lie and by approving a new marriage when they are already married to someone else…

Of course there is much more that could be said…given different situations…or just not said…for it would do no good…

Prudence and truth in charity must guide the response…

 

[PLeeD]

We are not in the business of “condemning”…

Thanks for that I should have said, would you consider me an adulterer?

A valid marriage between two validly baptized Christians …can not be undone by ANYONE or anything…except death.

Then why does Jesus say that we should not divorce except in the case of an adulterous spouse?

When two unbaptized persons are married (natural marriage) and one is then baptized and thus becomes a Christian …and the unbaptized person is not willing to live with them in peace…in which case it is possible for the Church to apply this principle …

Paul doesn’t say anything regarding whether the two people are baptized or are not baptized. What is the source of this idea that it only applies to two people who were unbaptized at the time of the marriage? I don’t see it in scripture.

Adultery per se etc does not dissolve any marriage…otherwise…anyone could just commit adultery and then marry the new person afterwards…or someone else… and thus the “til death do we part” would be meaningless…

The proposition that someone would purposefully commit adultery to nullify their own marriage, and think they were behaving properly according to scripture, is quite a stretch. What we are talking about here is a believer who has a) been abandoned per Paul’s teaching, and b) been a victim of an adulterous spouse.

Since I’m not ready to assent to the idea that Paul is referring specifically to “two unbaptized persons”, it seems that what is being made meaningless here is Jesus’ exception for divorce in the case of adultery. I see nothing in scripture to support the position that I’m still bound to my ex-wife.

BTW, I was not baptized at the time of my first marriage, but I don’t see where it matters in the context of this question.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How can the exception here be ignored?:

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Seems that this applies to the couple mentioned by the OP. It also applies to me. My first wife committed adultery, abandoned me, and refused extended reconciliation attempts. I re-married a woman who was widowed.

Would you condemn me for this?

Thanks for that I should have said, would you consider me an adulterer?

Then why does Jesus say that we should not divorce except in the case of an adulterous spouse?

Paul doesn’t say anything regarding whether the two people are baptized or are not baptized. What is the source of this idea that it only applies to two people who were unbaptized at the time of the marriage? I don’t see it in scripture.

The proposition that someone would purposefully commit adultery to nullify their own marriage, and think they were behaving properly according to scripture, is quite a stretch. What we are talking about here is a believer who has a) been abandoned per Paul’s teaching, and b) been a victim of an adulterous spouse.

Since I’m not ready to assent to the idea that Paul is referring specifically to “two unbaptized persons”, it seems that what is being made meaningless here is Jesus’ exception for divorce in the case of adultery. I see nothing in scripture to support the position that I’m still bound to my ex-wife.

BTW, I was not baptized at the time of my first marriage, but I don’t see where it matters in the context of this question.

PLeeD

Let’s be careful here as there are many, many problems and misunderstandings being mixed in this thread. Paul spoke of the conversion of one spouse with a refusal of the other spouse, and thus the allowed divorce. The significance of this to Catholics requires several other teachings be understood. Second, the comments of Jesus’ which are the base of the catholic annulment process which finds the two people never really obtained a divine marriage but instead attempted such. Now in many, many cases people find that condition they attempted to marry for life, fully unit with the other, and eventually produce children, but it never really happened. So the next issue is are they free to marry? Inside the Catholic Church, they are not free to marry until the Church finds their previous attempt was truly a failed attempt. The issue is whether this spouse unjustly abandoned a real marriage in which case the tribunal should rule neither of the pair from the first marriage are free to marry. Outside the Catholic Church is a different issue as Catholic authority known as Canon Laws do not apply.

Hope that helps

Btw – invalid marriage is an oxymoron

 

[Bookcat]

Then why does Jesus say that we should not divorce except in the case of an adulterous spouse?

He does not…the word used there is Porneia …Matthew was writing his Gospel to those with a Jewish background…thus he includes this part…it was understood by his audience … this will go into the detail for you: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Paul doesn’t say anything regarding whether the two people are baptized or are not baptized. What is the source of this idea that it only applies to two people who were unbaptized at the time of the marriage? I don’t see it in scripture.

Not everything is in scripture…but anyhow one can see…in the context…this is about a non baptized person who does not want to remain with a believer (thus baptized)…and this is at the very beginnings of things…when pagans were becoming Christians…so it could happen that one converts and another does not…

The proposition that someone would purposefully commit adultery to nullify their own marriage, and think they were behaving properly according to scripture, is quite a stretch.What we are talking about here is a believer who has a) been abandoned per Paul’s teaching, and b) been a victim of an adulterous spouse.

sorry that is not what Paul says there…read in context…

Since I’m not ready to assent to the idea that Paul is referring specifically to “two unbaptized persons”, it seems that what is being made meaningless here is Jesus’ exception for divorce in the case of adultery. I see nothing in scripture to support the position that I’m still bound to my ex-wife.

Not only is Jesus very serious about all of this… Paul is very clear too that Christians who end up serparating…are not to remarry (others) Just read 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39…very clear

Again I refer you here: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Thank you all for the (name removed by moderator)ut. It has been very helpful.

 

[snowlake]

You can always avoid congratulating them by saying “I wish you both the best”.
Meaning, you wish them well if they truly are married, and if not, you wish that
the situation will somehow be righted for the sake of their souls.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

You can always avoid congratulating them by saying “I wish you both the best”.
Meaning, you wish them well if they truly are married, and if not, you wish that
the situation will somehow be righted for the sake of their souls.

I like that. Thanks!

 

[Bookcat]

You can always avoid congratulating them by saying “I wish you both the best”.
Meaning, you wish them well if they truly are married, and if not, you wish that
the situation will somehow be righted for the sake of their souls.

I think this would be taken to mean “congratulations”…

to wish someone “the best” in such a context would mean “congrats on your marriage…”

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I think this would be taken to mean “congratulations”…

to wish someone “the best” in such a context would mean “congrats on your marriage…”

I can see that. It is more of an academic question, at any rate. My friend and I are not all that close these days, not from any animosity, but simply lack of contact over the years. I did not join in any of the Facebook congratulations and comments, so I think I shall refrain from saying anything at all.

 

[bingbang]

Then why does Jesus say that we should not divorce except in the case of an adulterous spouse?

He does not…the word used there is Porneia …Matthew was writing his Gospel to those with a Jewish background…thus he includes this part…it was understood by his audience … this will go into the detail for you: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Paul doesn’t say anything regarding whether the two people are baptized or are not baptized. What is the source of this idea that it only applies to two people who were unbaptized at the time of the marriage? I don’t see it in scripture.

Not everything is in scripture…but anyhow one can see…in the context…this is about a non baptized person who does not want to remain with a believer (thus baptized)…and this is at the very beginnings of things…when pagans were becoming Christians…so it could happen that one converts and another does not…

The proposition that someone would purposefully commit adultery to nullify their own marriage, and think they were behaving properly according to scripture, is quite a stretch.What we are talking about here is a believer who has a) been abandoned per Paul’s teaching, and b) been a victim of an adulterous spouse.

sorry that is not what Paul says there…read in context…

Since I’m not ready to assent to the idea that Paul is referring specifically to “two unbaptized persons”, it seems that what is being made meaningless here is Jesus’ exception for divorce in the case of adultery. I see nothing in scripture to support the position that I’m still bound to my ex-wife.

Not only is Jesus very serious about all of this… Paul is very clear too that Christians who end up serparating…are not to remarry (others) Just read 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39…very clear

Again I refer you here: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

I am sorry but that link that you have given is horrible. The points that the article makes are completely ridiculous IMO. Since this section of the quote is only in Matthew and not in Luke and Mark that makes it less valuable? If that is true why not just throw out Matthew, Mark, and Luke and just combine them into one Gospel that only has the parts that are in all three?

And Paul not mentioning the “exemptive clause” in his writings on divorce doesn’t prove anything either. You can count the times that Paul quotes Jesus in his letters on one hand (and two at the most). Paul had his own theology that wasn’t based on the Gospels because all of his letters were written before the Gospels. Also, Paul even mentions in Galatians (I believe) that he only spent a small amount of time with the apostles in Jerusalem (the ones that actually knew Jesus) and was just going off what was in his heart. So it is not surprising that he wouldn’t mention this.

This whole article is actually mind boggling to me. I can’t believe someone would even write this stuff. Every point that is made is just an attempt to grasp at straws. Jesus explicitly says that divorce is not an option other than in the case of adultery and Jimmy Akin is trying his hardest to disprove something that is clear as day. And I can’t believe he would even stoop so low as to suggest that since Matthew is the only gospel that mentions this line that it is not valid. Honestly, this is just pathetic.

 

[Bookcat]

I am sorry but that link that you have given is horrible. The points that the article makes are completely ridiculous IMO. Since this section of the quote is only in Matthew and not in Luke and Mark that makes it less valuable? If that is true why not just throw out Matthew, Mark, and Luke and just combine them into one Gospel that only has the parts that are in all three?

And Paul not mentioning the “exemptive clause” in his writings on divorce doesn’t prove anything either. You can count the times that Paul quotes Jesus in his letters on one hand (and two at the most). Paul had his own theology that wasn’t based on the Gospels because all of his letters were written before the Gospels. Also, Paul even mentions in Galatians (I believe) that he only spent a small amount of time with the apostles in Jerusalem (the ones that actually knew Jesus) and was just going off what was in his heart. So it is not surprising that he wouldn’t mention this.

This whole article is actually mind boggling to me. I can’t believe someone would even write this stuff. Every point that is made is just an attempt to grasp at straws. Jesus explicitly says that divorce is not an option other than in the case of adultery and Jimmy Akin is trying his hardest to disprove something that is clear as day. And I can’t believe he would even stoop so low as to suggest that since Matthew is the only gospel that mentions this line that it is not valid. Honestly, this is just pathetic.

Well I very much disagree with you …as would exegetes and theologians…

basically the word there would seem to mean not legal marriages…basically too close in blood …etc as Leviticus gets into.

The mention of the fact that Matthew is the only one to mention it …is due to it being a JEWISH THING…hence we find that Matthew mentions it due to his writing to a Hebrew audience in large part…

Jesus was not allowing divorce and remarriage for adultery…which is very clear in the Gospels and Paul and Christians have understood that divorce and remarriage were forbidden (as Paul himself notes in 1 Cor) from the beginning…this teaching has not Changed. Of course it is true that some Protestant Christians have misunderstood this point during the last few hundred years…but that is not been the understanding from the beginning.

Have a good Sunday

As for Paul and Jesus: He knew of him well…vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081008_en.html