Protestants, how is divorce and remarriage not adultery?

[TobyLue]

Julianna

**so an abused woman should keep her mouth shut and take the beatings because contemplating divorce is a no-no? **If that were my daughter,I’d pack her bags and move her the babies out…then I’d put a warrant out on the bum, hire a lawyer and process the divorce as fast as the state would allow it.

If I am off the beam on this…please explain.

But I will do legally what I can to “protect” my rights and the rights of my children. In the case of documented abuse, there should be no question, that an annulment is in order.

According to a friend of mine who is a Canon Lawyer, there sometimes may be cases where separation and even a civil divorce may be legitimate as in the example you cited above but that still does not compromise the Church’s teaching that the marriage is indissoluble. The marriage bond remains as far as the Church is concerned. The couple, if divorced, cannot remarry. So we must understand that even though the Church is against divorce, divorce must be distinguished from remarriage. I dont know whether what you state is correct "In the case of documented abuse, there should be no question that an annulment is in order. As the CCC states, if the spouses freely consented to live with each other till death, spousal abuse may not be sufficient for an annulment. An annulment means that there was some defect that makes the marriage contract invalid. A divorce makes the claim that the marriage is ended. An annulment finds that there was no valid marriage in the first place. I have a friend that is going through an annulment and he fully understands that even though he has been granted a divorce by the state, if the annulment is not granted he is willing to live a celibate life until he or his wife dies.
See CCC 2382-2386
You are correct as far as protecting your rights and your children…as stated in
CCC 2383 “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense”.
But this still does not mean that one is free to remarry.

 

[Jennifer_G]

From today’s readings:

Mark 10:
2: And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3: He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”
4: They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.”
5: But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6: But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.' 7: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8: and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
9: What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
10: And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
11: And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;
12: and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So how do Protestants allow divorce and remarriage? I know many (most?) do from many discussions I’ve had over the years.

We just had that reading in church Sunday for the Gospel Reading. (along with Mark 10:13-15) The sermon was about the children and being dependant on Jesus.

Interesting note - (slightly off topic), the ELCA (our Lutheran synod) has a User’s Guide to the Roman Catholic Church. (There’s a mention on divorce in there. It also says that both Lutherans and Catholics believe in the Real Presence in Holy Communion. I thought there was a difference)

I’m not sure what ours says exactly (can’t search now - rebooting, PC’s got some memory leakage going on).

 

[YinYangMom]

It seems to me the bottom line is that Jesus says there are circumstances by which a couple could divorce. But the real lesson in the reading is that a divorced person is not free to enter into another relationship, let alone marry that person.

I think it is important to keep the two matters separate.

How is it Protestants can read Mark 10:9–12 any other way than as it is written (especially if they’re the sola scriptura type)?

Remarriage is adultery, not because of any legalities, but because no man can unbind that which God has bound.

I guess that’s another reason why they don’t recognize marriage as a Sacrament? Since to do so would be to acknowledge God’s seal on the covenant entered into…I honestly don’t know.

It baffles me.

 

[YinYangMom]

We just had that reading in church Sunday for the Gospel Reading. (along with Mark 10:13-15) The sermon was about the children and being dependant on Jesus.

Interesting note - (slightly off topic), the ELCA (our Lutheran synod) has a User’s Guide to the Roman Catholic Church. (There’s a mention on divorce in there. It also says that both Lutherans and Catholics believe in the Real Presence in Holy Communion. I thought there was a difference)

I’m not sure what ours says exactly (can’t search now - rebooting, PC’s got some memory leakage going on).

It is my understanding that the ELCA believe in the Real Presence but only for the moment of the consecration…where we believe once consecrated always Real Presence, they believe the Real Presence changes back in to bread and wine once the mass is over, or something to that effect.

I could be wrong, though, that’s just what I recall in reading and conversations with others.

 

[Jennifer_G]

Here’s what I found about divorce (ELCA ethics manual)

1. Some Issues Related to Marriage
   It is the quality of interpersonal relationships within marriage that is the concern of the church. A covenant of fidelity can be broken in reality whether the union terminates formally through legal action or displays external solidarity. In ministering to persons affected by a broken covenant the church is called to assist them to perceive their problems more clearly and, hopefully, to experience forgiveness and reconciliation.

If the outcome is formal dissolution of the marriage, the church should continue to minister to all persons involved. To identify the legal action of divorce as sinful by itself obscures the fact that the marital relationship has already been mutually undermined by thoughts, words, and actions. Although divorce often brings anguish to those concerned, there may be situations in which securing a divorce is more responsible than staying together.

When the question of the remarriage of a divorced man or woman arises, the church and the individuals themselves will do well to concentrate upon the potential of the new rather than the collapse of the former marriage. A clear understanding of the dynamics which led to the breakdown of the first union helps a person prepare more adequately for the second. A divorced man and woman, of course, should fulfill all legitimate obligations to the members of the broken family.

A shared Christian faith contributes to the strength of a marriage. Even more, marriage and family provide a primary setting for Christian nurture and maturity. Before a man and woman enter into an interfaith marriage, each should strive to understand and respect his own faith and the faith of his partner. They should become intelligently informed about factors which can cause special difficulty.

Theologically, marriage between persons without reference to racial and ethnic differences and background is a witness to the oneness of humanity under the one God, and as such should be fully accepted in both church and society.

 

[ahimsaman72]

It seems to me the bottom line is that Jesus says there are circumstances by which a couple could divorce. But the real lesson in the reading is that a divorced person is not free to enter into another relationship, let alone marry that person.

I think it is important to keep the two matters separate.

How is it Protestants can read Mark 10:9–12 any other way than as it is written (especially if they’re the sola scriptura type)?

Remarriage is adultery, not because of any legalities, but because no man can unbind that which God has bound.

I guess that’s another reason why they don’t recognize marriage as a Sacrament? Since to do so would be to acknowledge God’s seal on the covenant entered into…I honestly don’t know.

It baffles me.

Well, that’s not really a fair assumption. They don’t recognize it as a Sacrament because God didn’t appoint all people to be married. Jesus only commanded communion and baptism as far as protestants are concerned.

I think the difference lies in the interpretation of the “God binding” Scriptures. Though the Scripture says that they are “one flesh”, obviously the two people aren’t physically joined at the hip. It’s a metaphor.

Catholics (obviously) take the passages in John about the literal body and blood of Jesus and this passage in Matthew about joining together man and woman as one flesh as literal (I guess) whereas Protestants do not. That’s an interesting parallel.

Peace…

 

[ABalch]

Separation and civil divorce; ie. divorce under the laws of the area you live in, are more than acceptable by the Church in cases of a person having concern for their welfare or the welfare of their children if they stay around an abusive spouse. Divorce is a civil action–the courts in the jurisdiction you live in declaring that the legal bond between the couple has been severed. The Church, though, still says that that couple is sacrementally married, and therefore are not able to remarry, unless they seek a declaration of nullity, which involves the Church investigating the circumstances surrounding the sacrement of marriage. In an investigation into the marriage, the only things that matter was the state of the two people attempting to enter into the marriage, and whether that marriage actually occurred. One instance of this is, if it is found by the investigation, that one or both of the persons in this “marriage” were coerced to marry the other, than they did not enter into a marriage, because they did not willingly enter into union with their spouse. So, a shot-gun wedding would be invalid, and if it was investigated after the couple were divorced, then the Church would declare that marrigage had never actually occurred, so both people would be free to marry another.

 

[momof8]

I am lucky in that I have a wonderful husband of 25 yrs. However, if my husband, baptised, married in the church were to ever lay a hand on me, or shoot up herion…yes, boyo…I would get a divorce. Because he would not be able to get his bummy little hands on anything that I have worked for. If I don’t divorce…he can stil beat me, and rob the household. Doubt seriously that the loving God, I believe in, would allow that to happen.

To “bear it”…is inhuman. To separate and hope that he won’t beat me anymore…is a good thing? In the case of abuse…there is no reconcilliation with me…he can reconcile with God, because in the end, it’s not my forgiveness he needs.

But I will do legally what I can to “protect” my rights and the rights of my children. In the case of documented abuse, there should be no question, that an annulment is in order.

Julianna,

I just wanted to make the point that divorce, sadly, does not always protect abused women. It is certainly not unheard of for an abusive husband to go after the wife during or after the divorce proceedings. Related to that, it is believed that a person does not BECOME an abuser after a marriage, but that the personality problems were there and have come to the surface in the marriage. In fact, the signs were probably there before the marriage, and that situation gives a very good case for granting an annulment, in that it would be argued that an abusive person does not have the psychological capacity to enter into a marriage covenant.

In regard to some other comments on this topic, I have been told that if an abuser’s marriage is annuled, the Church does not just automatically consider the abuser “free to marry.” On the contrary, the abuser would be advised that the annulment was granted but that he or she would not be allowed to remarry in the Church, or would only be allowed to remarry after adequate counseling.

I just don’t want the picture to be left that the Church is insensitive to or ignorant about these situations or lacking in concern or compassion for anyone suffering in an abusive marriage.

 

[santaro75]

If someone’s spouse runs off with someone else and gets married, can that be grounds for an annulment in the RCC?

 

[Steadfast]

Here’s what I found about divorce (ELCA ethics manual)

Jennifer, here is the LCMS position on divorce and remarriage. It is about 50 pages long…so, if you want to read it you may want to print it out (and I hope you will, more than a third of American Lutherans are more in line with this than with the ELCA position and, including more conservative members in that church it may approach something over 50%).

It gets interesting about page 14 or so, before this it’s an excursus on OT norms for divorce and remarriage. The whole thing is very rich.

The status of the abandoned spouse who is not responsible for the final breakdown of marriage caused by divorce for reasons other than fornication, or by unchastity on the part of the offending spouse, is not expressly mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5:32. Neither is there any direct prohibition of the remarriage of one who has not destroyed the union through divorce and unchastity. That Jesus refrains from charging with adultery the one who has been put away as victim of the sinful act of another suggests that we, too, ought to exercise considerable caution regarding judgments in such cases, lest we “bind heavy burdens, hard to bear.”

The article does not seem to speak directly to abuse or addiction, but I am quite sure that the LCMS would, generally, respond with charity to the offended spouse, recognizing there the abandonment of a believer and her children by one who has made shipwreck of his faith if he ever had any.

 

[JoeyWarren]

If someone’s spouse runs off with someone else and gets married, can that be grounds for an annulment in the RCC?

I don’t know about an annulment, but it sure is grounds for arrest.

 

[frnate]

It seems to me the bottom line is that Jesus says there are circumstances by which a couple could divorce. But the real lesson in the reading is that a divorced person is not free to enter into another relationship, let alone marry that person.

I think it is important to keep the two matters separate.

How is it Protestants can read Mark 10:9-12 any other way than as it is written (especially if they’re the sola scriptura type)?

Remarriage is adultery, not because of any legalities, but because no man can unbind that which God has bound.

I guess that’s another reason why they don’t recognize marriage as a Sacrament? Since to do so would be to acknowledge God’s seal on the covenant entered into…I honestly don’t know.

It baffles me.

Hi,
Thought I’d put in my :twocents:
It seems to me that the bottomline is that marriages CAN end completely. The issue isn’t really whether a couple were validly joined in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Rather, the mindset of Western Rationalism which has infected the Church’s thinking on an issue that is clearly a mystery. The RCC has claimed Apostolic authority over all facets of the life of it’s members, (mind, I don’t disagree) including the Sacramental authority to bind two people together. Yet, when one of those marriages is unquestionably and irretrievably broken, it claims it cannot ask God to honor it’s authority to bind and loose in this matter. Why? If the Church has the authority to forgive sins (which only God can do) to the benefit of the believer, the Church and ultimately to the glory of God Himself, why won’t she exercise that same authority, since it is God’s and not merely man’s, for those same reasons? How on earth can we POSSIBLY justify refusing the healing effects of the Sacraments to those who are living through one of the toughest times a person can endure!

THAT’S what baffles me.

As far as Protestants and the Sacraments, I was taught that there is no such thing as a Sacrament, only Ordinances (I was raised Baptecostal- we did everything but speak in tongues)

Also, in case anyone is wondering, I am Catholic but not Roman, Evangelical but not Protestant, I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture but not sola scriptura.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[YinYangMom]

The RCC has claimed Apostolic authority over all facets of the life of it’s members, (mind, I don’t disagree) including the Sacramental authority to bind two people together.

The Church doesn’t bind two people together in the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church witnesses two people binding themselves to each other **with **God in the Sacrament of Marriage.

What GOD binds, no man, including the men of the Catholic church cannot unbind. The Authority of the Catholic church respects God’s will.

Yet, when one of those marriages is unquestionably and irretrievably broken, it claims it cannot ask God to honor it’s authority to bind and loose in this matter. Why?

Jesus gave the binding and losening authority to the Apostles with regard to SIN (the Sacrament of Reconciliation).

The Church recognizes divorce. A married couple can divorce, thus ending that legal obligation to live under the same roof, share resources, etc.

But the Church cannot allow a married person to marry another. It is not within Her power to do so. God bound that person to his/her spouse ‘til death do us part’, thus the Church is bound to honor that covenant.

If the Church has the authority to forgive sins (which only God can do) to the benefit of the believer,

The Church has the authority to forgive sins because it was expressly given it to them from Jesus…but remember, it is in His name that the binding and losening takes place - never by the priest himself. The priest acts in persona Christe in the confessional so that it is Jesus forgiving the sinner, not the priest, just as it is Jesus, through the Holy Spirit who changes bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (it’s not the priest doing it).

How on earth can we POSSIBLY justify refusing the healing effects of the Sacraments to those who are living through one of the toughest times a person can endure!

Who’s refusing the healing effects of the sacrament to those who are living through tough times?

A divorced Catholic who remains celibate can actively participate in the Eucharist and in Reconciliation and thus receive many graces to help them through one of the roughest times of their lives.

 

[Veritas41]

If someone’s spouse runs off with someone else and gets married, can that be grounds for an annulment in the RCC?

An annulment is not a divorce. An annulment says a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place, so it’s not what couples do *after *they’re married that matters so much as their mindset and the circumstances of their marriage in the beginning.

 

[frnate]

The priest acts in persona Christe in the confessional so that it is Jesus forgiving the sinner, not the priest…The Church doesn’t bind two people together in the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church witnesses two people binding themselves to each other **with **God in the Sacrament of Marriage.

That was exactly my point in comparing marriage to reconciliation. It is not man who forgives the sinner nor is it man who unbinds the married. It is God.

What GOD binds, no man, including the men of the Catholic church cannot unbind. The Authority of the Catholic church respects God’s will.

And God, being ever the gentleman, honors the sacramental authority which He has given His Church. He also honors our right to do goofy, human things like marriage tribunals and the annulment process. I guess what I’m saying is that while I respect the authority of the RCC to require it’s members to abide by it’s rules, I think they need to recognize that validly married people can become validly un-married. Then, perhaps, formulate the process of becoming un-married? I know that’s a tall order and don’t expect to see it myself, but I have faith that God can do anything.

Who’s refusing the healing effects of the sacrament to those who are living through tough times? A divorced Catholic who remains celibate can actively participate in the Eucharist and in Reconciliation and thus receive many graces to help them through one of the roughest times of their lives.

I stand corrected, I told you I wasn’t Roman
However, I do believe that it is short-sighted to require celibacy of those who may not be called to that discipline. The RCC position, while being an idealistic solution, falls far short of being realistic when dealing with the scourge of divorce and it’s effect on the lives of the faithful.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[YinYangMom]

And God, being ever the gentleman, honors the sacramental authority which He has given His Church. He also honors our right to do goofy, human things like marriage tribunals and the annulment process.

The tribunals look into the sacramental nature of the ceremony to determine whether or not the required elements were indeed in place at the time the couple entered into the covenant with each other and God. They are not ‘undoing’ anything God has bound. Sorry, but the Church cannot come up with their own authority. Jesus authorized them to recognize the sacrament, not to administer it or dissolve it.

However, I do believe that it is short-sighted to require celibacy of those who may not be called to that discipline.
Peace,
+Nathan

Every unmarried human being is called to the discipline of celibacy. The Church didn’t make that up, it was revealed to the Apostles through Jesus…it also has strong roots in the Old Testament. Does your Church accept pre-marital making out and sexual relations as moral behaviors according to the teachings of Christ?

 

[frnate]

The tribunals look into the sacramental nature of the ceremony to determine whether or not the required elements were indeed in place at the time the couple entered into the covenant with each other and God. They are not ‘undoing’ anything God has bound. Sorry, but the Church cannot come up with their own authority. Jesus authorized them to recognize the sacrament, not to administer it or dissolve it.

I didn’t mean to imply that the tribunal had that power or sought to undo what God had bound. I understand they believe they cannot and they would not presume to try. My point is that a paradigm shift may be in order because the belief that a valid marriage is indissoluble might be mistaken. It is unquestioned that the Church has the authority to bind and loose. So why would God refuse to honor that authority only in the case of marital dissolution? I am not suggesting that the Church should invent any authority. God forbid!!! I am suggesting that the Church may already have that authority, but has not yet recognized it. The Church has defined her position on marriage over a long period of time. It is how she has always defined her positions and is one of her greatest strengths. I trust that she will eventually abandon her present course on this issue and thus, imho, better serve both her God and the faithful.

Every unmarried human being is called to the discipline of celibacy. The Church didn’t make that up, it was revealed to the Apostles through Jesus…it also has strong roots in the Old Testament. Does your Church accept pre-marital making out and sexual relations as moral behaviors according to the teachings of Christ?

I’ll give the obvious answer, just for the record…NO WAY:tsktsk: We’re not some sort of Montanist sect…eeewwww!

I apologize for not being more precise. I vehemently agree that unmarried persons must be celibate. But not every unmarried person is called to remain unmarried. Even divorced ones, but they have no options. Either they remain as faithful as possible and be tempted to commit grave sin or they can excommunicate themselves and be remarried. I think the solution may be right under the Church’s collective noses, but heck, that’d be too easy

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[Harpazo]

Alright, I don’t have much more to add to this discussion, except this question:

My mother was previously married before she married my father. She divorced the man, because he verbally/emotionally abused her. Then she married my dad. They had me and my sister. In the eyes of the Church would we be illegitimate children?

I know that sounds rather radical in a sense, but it seems to be the case. Perhaps a better phrase would be “product of adultry.”

Any help would be appreciated.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[dsulpizio]

Some clarifictions so that things aren’t lost in all of the posts:

1. The Church will support living separately from a spouse when extreme conditions exist.
2. They will support you getting a civil divorce in order to protect yourself financially and get child support.
3. The ‘divorce’ is civil and does nothing to change your marital status in the eyes of God, and as such, you are still married and are to conduct yourself as such.
4. We Catholics are bound by the Church’s authority regarding our marriages…Luther put this in the hands of the civil authorities for his followers and things have gone down hill ever since. It’s the civil authorities that are now trying to twist marrige into something that it isn’t, as well as allowing ‘divorce’.
5. Getting annulment does not depend on what happened during the marriage. An annulment will be given based on the status of those involved at the time that the marrige takes place.
6. John the Baptist gave us our first annulment! Remember that he told Herod that his ‘marriage’ was not one that God recognized.

 

[Steadfast]

All very good points and very well stated, but it’s hardly fair to blame it all on Luther. Divorce existed before Luther came along and whether you like to admit it or not, at least at one time for people who could afford it, anullments were the ecclesiastical equivalent.

Unless you want to blame the secularization rampant in the “post-modern” West on him as well.

But then, you’d have to explain why it’s just as rampant in “Catholic Countries”.

But then, I have just remembered that I am on a bbs where everything from the breakdown of the nuclear family to islamofascism are his fault.

Some clarifictions so that things aren’t lost in all of the posts:

1. The Church will support living separately from a spouse when extreme conditions exist.
2. They will support you getting a civil divorce in order to protect yourself financially and get child support.
3. The ‘divorce’ is civil and does nothing to change your marital status in the eyes of God, and as such, you are still married and are to conduct yourself as such.
4. We Catholics are bound by the Church’s authority regarding our marriages…Luther put this in the hands of the civil authorities for his followers and things have gone down hill ever since. It’s the civil authorities that are now trying to twist marrige into something that it isn’t, as well as allowing ‘divorce’.
5. Getting annulment does not depend on what happened during the marriage. An annulment will be given based on the status of those involved at the time that the marrige takes place.
6. John the Baptist gave us our first annulment! Remember that he told Herod that his ‘marriage’ was not one that God recognized.