Question on Pauline Privilege

[GiveMePeace]

In the gospel (Mark 10:6-12) marriage is described by Christ as indissoluble. Two parts stand out:
“Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

However, in 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul states:
“If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.” (This is the basis of the “Pauline privilege”)

I see Corinthians and Mark being in conflict on this issue. Jesus allows no divorce, Paul allows divorce to facilitate conversion.
How can Paul change the teaching of Christ, which was declared as being, “from the beginning?”

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t see Paul condoning divorce. He would be condoning “separation” or by the term “not bound” he may well mean that there was no bind to begin with…i.e. the marriage was null, there was no marriage.

The Haydock Commentary has a similar perspective on 1 Cor. 7:15:If any brother have a wife that believeth not, &c. St. Paul speaks of two that were joined by a contract of marriage, when both of them were infidels, and that one of them is converted to the Christian faith: we do not read of any precept that Christ gave, as to those marriages, but the apostle seems to order by his apostolical authority, that they continue as man and wife, unless the party that remains still an infidel, will needs depart; then, says the apostle, let such an one depart. There is also another case, to wit, when the man or woman remaining an infidel, will not live without continual injuries and blasphemies against God and the Catholic religion, so that there can be no peace on that account betwixt them. In these two cases, according to the canons of the Church, it is looked upon as no marriage, so that the party converted may marry another. And this seems grounded on the reason, which the apostle here gave, that God hath called us in peace. (Witham)

 

[Abu]

GiveMePeace (Re Mark 10:6-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:15)
I see Corinthians and Mark being in conflict on this issue. Jesus allows no divorce, Paul allows divorce to facilitate conversion.
How can Paul change the teaching of Christ, which was declared as being, “from the beginning?”

The comments from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, editor Dom Bernard Orchard, Nelson 1953, explain that:

1. In v. 10-11, Paul discourages separation, but allows it for grave reasons, stressing that marriage cannot be dissolved.
2. In 12-16, “a married pagan who becomes a Christian has the option of divorcing the other partner who still remains pagan, and will not live peaceably with the Christian. It only applies to unbaptized persons…it does not dissolve a sacramental marriage, for unbaptized persons can not receive a sacrament….he speaks as an apostle, authorized to decide in Christ’s name.”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The comments from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, editor Dom Bernard Orchard, Nelson 1953, explain that:

1. In v. 10-11, Paul discourages separation, but allows it for grave reasons, stressing that marriage cannot be dissolved.
2. In 12-16, “a married pagan who becomes a Christian has the option of divorcing the other partner who still remains pagan, and will not live peaceably with the Christian. It only applies to unbaptized persons…it does not dissolve a sacramental marriage, for unbaptized persons can not receive a sacrament….he speaks as an apostle, authorized to decide in Christ’s name.”

That is what I have always heard. However, I just realized that, at the time Jesus made the statements in Mark, there were no baptized persons; so there were no sacramental marriages. Haven’t figured out how to handle that yet.

 

[Abu]

Joe Kelley
I just realized that, at the time Jesus made the statements in Mark, there were no baptized persons; so there were no sacramental marriages.

Jesus was teaching the New Covenant to His followers and preparing them for that just as when Jesus taught His disciples “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you shall not have life in you” (Jn 6:53) – there was no Eucharist yet. There were no sacraments, before or after the Last Supper institution, until the descent of the Holy Spirit empowered the Apostles and disciples to fulfill the New Covenant.

 

[Spencerian]

In the gospel (Mark 10:6-12) marriage is described by Christ as indissoluble. Two parts stand out:
“Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

However, in 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul states:
“If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.” (This is the basis of the “Pauline privilege”)

I see Corinthians and Mark being in conflict on this issue. Jesus allows no divorce, Paul allows divorce to facilitate conversion.
How can Paul change the teaching of Christ, which was declared as being, “from the beginning?”

Hi.

I think others have answered this question, but I wanted to chime in as one who has been granted marriage in the Church through the Pauline Privilege.

St. Paul has always been a man that helped in trying to ease others in the transition between Old Covenant and New Covenant. What Jesus noted in Matthew 19:8 was that, in the Old Covenant, Moses allowed divorce (despite God’s distaste for it) because the peoples at the time were too hard of heart to accept a no-divorce rule. With the New Covenant, God’s people, now both Gentile and Jew, were more understanding of the need for a single marriage–but many had ties to the Old Covenant or other pagan ways in their own mixed marriages, and neither person were willing to change their beliefs.

Thus, the development of what we call now the Pauline Privilege, which allows two people who are *unbaptized *to separate–provided the one separating is to formally follow Christ as a Catholic, *and * with the intention of marrying another Catholic. You can’t receive this “Favor of the Faith” without declaring your desire to remarry another Catholic (who also must have been unmarried). It should also be noted that the “Favor” is really conferred more on your Catholic unmarried intended than the separating party.

Yep, telling the tribunal that you want to marry someone without actually popping the question sure takes the steam out of your Big Question night in proposing later…but following Christ was only the start of a wonderful new life. I was first married to an atheist, and even as an agnostic, I had a driving knowledge that God existed that was incompatible.

Now, things are right with the world.

Important to note: While the Church cannot dissolve a sacramental marriage, they can dissolve a non-sacramental one–that’s the heart of the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is similar but more complicated. While a local tribunal can directly aid in the Pauline, a Petrine petition (which has one party that’s baptized) has to go to all the way to Rome for a decision.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…While a local tribunal can directly aid in the Pauline, a Petrine petition (which has one party that’s baptized) has to go to all the way to Rome for a decision.

I don’t know how it is now, but a few years back, when I was running RCIA for our parish, Rome was responding in about three months. However, they were quite strict in requiring that all paper work be in order, or it just bounced back.

 

[Spencerian]

I don’t know how it is now, but a few years back, when I was running RCIA for our parish, Rome was responding in about three months. However, they were quite strict in requiring that all paper work be in order, or it just bounced back.

Same here. I don’t know the speed of Petrine Privilege petitions. I suspect that the process takes some time at the diocean tribunal level before it makes it way Rome-ward.

As for my Pauline Privilege, I filed my petition as a standard annulment process in December 2008. I was notified that it could be reviewed as a Pauline petition by February. I received the approval for marriage on (of all wonderful days), Good Friday, four months later. There was much prayer and thanks in my house that day.