Remarriage after divorce

[CaliLobo]

It would be remarkable if Jesus actually intended to make adultery an exception allowing for divorce. It would essentially provide a “get out of marriage free” card. I can see a dissatisfied spouse considering: “Well, in order to get a divorce, I’ll have to commit adultery, so that’s what I’ll do.” Or both spouses saying, “Okay, if we want to get divorced, one of us is going to have to commit adultery. Let’s flip a coin.”

Did Jesus Allow Divorce?

The word translated as “unchastity” here is the Greek word porneia (from which the word pornography is derived) and its literal meaning is debated among Scripture scholars. Full treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this article…

So the meaning of the word “porneia” is debated, leaving room for the Protestant interpretation?

 

[Thorns]

It would be remarkable if Jesus actually intended to make adultery an exception allowing for divorce. It would essentially provide a “get out of marriage free” card. I can see a dissatisfied spouse considering: “Well, in order to get a divorce, I’ll have to commit adultery, so that’s what I’ll do.” Or both spouses saying, “Okay, if we want to get divorced, one of us is going to have to commit adultery. Let’s flip a coin.”

Did Jesus Allow Divorce?

Well, that is no different than the "get out of marriage free card"we have now. Since only death can dissolve a marriage, people can always resort to killing their spouse so that they can validly remarry. And in fact, they did do this very thing in Moses’ time

 

[JimG]

The word translated as “unchastity” here is the Greek word porneia (from which the word pornography is derived) and its literal meaning is debated among Scripture scholars. Full treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this article…

So the meaning of the word “porneia” is debated, leaving room for the Protestant interpretation?

Certainly not among Catholics. The Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage has a long history which the Church sees as having come from Jesus himself. See, for example, this tract:

catholic.com/tracts/the-permanence-of-matrimony

I think that in reading some of the early Fathers of the Church, it was said that divorce was allowed in cases where the spouse had been unfaithful. But even in those cases, remarriage was not allowed. Remarriage by the innocent party was considered to be adulterous. And if the guilty spouse repented, the innocent party was obliged to take them back into the marriage.

But I’m no scripture scholar. I’ll let others argue that. I only know that the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church has been that marriage is permanent. Even in my high school days, long long ago, we talked about the fact that marriage was until death, so you’d better be certain of the person you wanted to marry.

I also recommend the article in First Things magazine that I have mentioned before:
firstthings.com/article/2014/08/divorce-and-remarriage

 

[styrgwillidar]

The word translated as “unchastity” here is the Greek word porneia (from which the word pornography is derived) and its literal meaning is debated among Scripture scholars. Full treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this article…

So the meaning of the word “porneia” is debated, leaving room for the Protestant interpretation?

Sure. If you take the protestant view that the Church has no authority, than you can disregard all its teachings on the subject. You can then interpret any passage of the bible anyway you would like to. You can even go down the Martin Luther route of simply tossing out books. Heck, if that’s valid you can decide that this whole section should be tossed out as well. If the Church has no authority, you could even disregard the entire Bible since there is no authority to cite for its authenticity or validity or to testify to it being scripture.

Catholics believe in the nature of marriage as a permanent covenant because that has been what it has taught since the Church was founded by Christ. Sacred Tradition.

Catholics believe that the Church was given the duty and authority to teach the entire deposit of the faith and adhere to Truth. Its teachings initially were passed on orally and eventually books/writings deemed to be scriptural were collected into the Bible. These writings never were represented as constituting the entirety of the faith, or covering everything Jesus and then the apostles handed on. They were all deemed to be consistent with the teaching but not comprehensive. And not self interpreting.

As a Catholic I can not read the scriptures independently of the Teachings and Sacred Tradition of the Church, but in conjunction with them.

I would have no reason to accept the Bible as scripture without the authority of the Catholic Church as a justification.

So, while you and I can quibble about translations and parse wording, I can rely on the teaching of the Church across over 2,000 years for the Truth of what Christ taught.

ETA: Hence, when I took a vow of marriage as a Catholic it was with the understanding of marriage as defined and held to by the Church across the centuries. That is what I promised God and held myself to. Is it fair that my spouse at some point decided to bail out? That they decided marriage wasn’t a life-long commitment? Not from my view. But that isn’t God’s fault- He gave us free will and that’s a consequence. Life isn’t fair, there are all kinds of people with far heavier burdens than I had to carry.

 

[sw85]

Simple question. Why not?

Didn’t God foresee that there would be people (including some on CAF) that married with good intentions, thinking this was the right one, but then things went to trash for reasons not their own?

Isn’t God a merciful God to allow remarriage in these situations?

Marriage is a “type” (that is, a representation) of Christ’s union with the Church. Though Christ married us freely, we routinely rebel against him, cheat on him, spurn him, mock him, etc., through sin. We should be glad, then, that he is a faithful lover – that the Father, in his mercifulness, does not absolve his Son from the shrew he married and let us die in the dark of the streets like we deserve.

Matthew 19:9 in the ESV (the version most often used by Evangelicals) says:

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Can we reconcile the discrepancy between the ESV and the Catholic version?

There is no discrepancy, Protestants are just interpreting it wrong. “Whoever divorces his wife … and marries another” is not one condition. They are two separate conditions. Whoever divorces (i.e., separates from) his wife for any reason except adultery commits adultery. And whoever marries another, even if previously divorced, commits adultery. In other words, he is allowing that adultery dissolves a marriage quoad thorum, though not quoad vinculum.

Also, in Matthew 19:8, God allowed Moses to allow divorce. So there is precedent for divorce in Christianity.

God gave Moses permission to do something in the Gospel of Matthew? After Moses had already been dead a few thousand years?

No, he acknowledged that Moses had previously been given permission to dissolve marriages. That permission existed because those marriages were purely natural and non-sacramental. He brought it up precisely because he was revoking that permission in the New and Eternal Covenant. Why? Because marriage in the New and Eternal Covenant is as eternal as the Covenant itself.

That’s not what this thread is about. Of course what you’re describing is evil. But how about the situation in which a spouse comes out as gay, or becomes bipolar, or abusive?

Do we deny the children from having a new father or mother to replace the abuser? Do we deny remarriage, and in turn possibly deny communion to someone who marries the new father or mother?

Do we deny remarriage to someone whose spouse comes out as gay? It’s not someone’s fault his or her spouse comes out as gay.

The prohibition on remarriage is not about faulting anyone. It is just about reality. If you feel the need to fault someone, fault the faithless spouse who is willing to abandon their family so they can indulge their perverse appetites.

Yes, divorce is a terrible thing for the abandoned spouse and for children. Sin is like that, it hurts people, it hurts reality itself. This is exactly why we shouldn’t allow divorce in the first place except in the most grievous circumstances. The solution to people failing to do their duty isn’t to absolve other people of their duties; the solution is to make it ruinously difficult for people to fail to do their duties to their families in the first place.

 

[JimG]

Well, that is no different than the "get out of marriage free card"we have now. Since only death can dissolve a marriage, people can always resort to killing their spouse so that they can validly remarry. And in fact, they did do this very thing in Moses’ time

That’s a possibility, but killing your spouse can land you in prison.

People don’t seem to have a problem finding reasons for divorce. Why are they so eager to obtain Jesus’ approval for it?

 

[Thorns]

That’s a possibility, but killing your spouse can land you in prison.

People don’t seem to have a problem finding reasons for divorce. Why are they so eager to obtain Jesus’ approval for it?

Some people have a thing for legalism.

If one is willing to kill to do the right thing lawfully,they miss the point of the law entirely, are hypocrites, and are fooling no one. That’s why legalism is bad.

 

[JimG]

Some people have a thing for legalism.

If one is willing to kill to do the right thing lawfully,they miss the point of the law entirely, are hypocrites, and are fooling no one. That’s why legalism is bad.

I’m not advocating legalism. I’m only advocating that marriage vows be taken seriously as God intended, recognizing marriage as a permanent covenant, unbreakable by man.

 

[styrgwillidar]

That’s a possibility, but killing your spouse can land you in prison.

People don’t seem to have a problem finding reasons for divorce. Why are they so eager to obtain Jesus’ approval for it?

Well, I think it’s tha people want to think of God as loving, just and merciful. When faced with abandonment by a spouse the idea of not having that kind of companionship in the future, through no fault of your own, doesn’t align with our human conception of love, justice and mercy. It is hard to equate our having to make the decision to show our love for God by adhering to His commandments, our having to make sacrifices for an omniscient and all-powerful God with a loving and merciful God. Why would a God who loves us expect us to make such hard choices and commitments, again, particularly when we tried our best to keep the situation from occurring?

Similar to the commonly asked question-- how can I loving God allow misery in the world in its various forms?

 

[thewanderer]

Not everyone makes a solemn vow when marrying. A lot of people use the traditional vows because it’s tradition, but believe them to be merely for ceremonial purposes. In modern times most people go into marriage thinking it may last a lifetime and even hoping it does, but believing that they can divorce if their feelings or circumstances change. And, really, is that so surprising? Because we grow up watching marriage-divorce-remarriage socially and civilly divorcing leaves one free to remarry legally how are we supposed to think marriage truly is for life? All the evidence around us says otherwise even in the churches.

And such a line of thinking would qualify them for an annulment, after which they would be free to marry validly. So there’s really no issue here. Either you make a solemn vow with the understanding that this is a permanent vow and so you should obviously keep it or you don’t and so are eligible for annulment and remarriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, that is no different than the "get out of marriage free card"we have now. Since only death can dissolve a marriage, people can always resort to killing their spouse so that they can validly remarry. And in fact, they did do this very thing in Moses’ time

Interestingly enough, Canon Law specifically states that if either party who is attempting to marry killed the spouse of one of the partners so that they could marry their attempt at marriage will be invalid. So, no, there is no out here.

 

[JimG]

Not everyone makes a solemn vow when marrying. A lot of people use the traditional vows because it’s tradition, but believe them to be merely for ceremonial purposes.** In modern times most people go into marriage thinking it may** last a lifetime and even hoping it does, but believing that they can divorce if their feelings or circumstances change. And, really, is that so surprising? Because we grow up watching marriage-divorce-remarriage socially and civilly divorcing leaves one free to remarry legally how are we supposed to think marriage truly is for life? All the evidence around us says otherwise even in the churches.

Yes, I think that is exactly the mindset of many who enter into marriage. But it is that mindset which will doom their marriage. It is the reason for the large divorce rate, and the reason for the exploding number of annulments of Catholic marriages.

Newlyweds ought to be able to rest in the assurance–formally promised to each other in the presence of God and the community–of the permanence and indissolubility of their bond. They mutually promise that their love will last until death, no matter what. And the fact is, if both parties took that promise with ultimate seriousness from the beginning, the divorce rate would nearly drop to zero. A promise of permanence, a decision to love till death, is better than a hope for permanence, because the underlying doubt, the mental exception, will undermine the marriage.

 

[bluemug]

Who are we to judge? Even God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be it’s saviour. Jesus is the only one who knows the world, and He loves unconditionally.
He sits and eats with taxmen, prostitutes, sinners.
He said to the woman: " go and sin no more", he did not tell her to do penance.
HE is simply LOVE. The world adores rules and formulas.
Yes, Jesus must be truly God. HE invites us to come as we are…
The first could be last, and the last could be first. Only HE knows.

 

[JimG]

Who are we to judge? Even God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be it’s saviour. Jesus is the only one who knows the world, and He loves unconditionally.
He sits and eats with taxmen, prostitutes, sinners.
He said to the woman: " go and sin no more", he did not tell her to do penance.
HE is simply LOVE. The world adores rules and formulas.
Yes, Jesus must be truly God. HE invites us to come as we are…
The first could be last, and the last could be first. Only HE knows.

Yes, and it was Jesus who so firmly told his disciples that divorce was not allowed.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Who are we to judge? Even God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be it’s saviour. Jesus is the only one who knows the world, and He loves unconditionally.
He sits and eats with taxmen, prostitutes, sinners.
He said to the woman: " go and sin no more", he did not tell her to do penance.
HE is simply LOVE. The world adores rules and formulas.
Yes, Jesus must be truly God. HE invites us to come as we are…
The first could be last, and the last could be first. Only HE knows.

Your profile says Catholic, but your statements contradict the Church and the Gospel. Or at least incomplete.

Who are we to judge? Even God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be it’s saviour. Jesus is the only one who knows the world, and He loves unconditionally.

How far are you prepared to go with this. Unrepentant child rapists? Murderers? Who are we to Judge is not in the Bible the way you think it is. We can and do judge all the time. We do not judge eternal souls and their destination, but God tells us HOW souls will be judged.

He sits and eats with taxmen, prostitutes, sinners.

Yes, and he converts them and helps them change their ways usually the people who use this phrase never ever want to actually help someone change and repent.

The rest of the post is anti Catholic. Attacking “rules” and penance.

Where do you get your basis for your theology?

 

[Thorns]

It would be remarkable if Jesus actually intended to make adultery an exception allowing for divorce. It would essentially provide a “get out of marriage free” card. I can see a dissatisfied spouse considering: “Well, in order to get a divorce, I’ll have to commit adultery, so that’s what I’ll do.” Or both spouses saying, “Okay, if we want to get divorced, one of us is going to have to commit adultery. Let’s flip a coin.”

Interestingly enough, Canon Law specifically states that if either party who is attempting to marry killed the spouse of one of the partners so that they could marry their attempt at marriage will be invalid. So, no, there is no out here.

I agree with thewanderer here. If a spouse was willing to commit adultery and/or did with the intention of getting out of the marriage so they could “validly” remarry, it would still not be a valid marriage. So like thewanderer said, there still isn’t an out.

So it seems even more plausible to me that Jesus would have made an exception, considering the meaning of “porneia” and all

 

[JimG]

I agree with thewanderer here. If a spouse was willing to commit adultery and/or did with the intention of getting out of the marriage so they could “validly” remarry, it would still not be a valid marriage. So like thewanderer said, there still isn’t an out.

So it seems even more plausible to me that Jesus would have made an exception, considering the meaning of “porneia” and all

The only way that one can validly remarry after a divorce is if the marriage was null from the beginning. Does the fact that one or both spouses is now willing to commit adultery solely for the purpose of divorce mean that the marriage was null from the beginning? Not necessarily.

 

[thewanderer]

CaliLobo, I would really love to know your thoughts on my comment about what a marriage vow is. I guess I just don’t understand why you would expect God to allow a persons vow to become meaningless by allowing them to renege on it if they feel like things become too difficult.

 

[bisco]

calilobo is a troll, in case you haven’t noticed.

 

[CaliLobo]

CaliLobo, I would really love to know your thoughts on my comment about what a marriage vow is. I guess I just don’t understand why you would expect God to allow a persons vow to become meaningless by allowing them to renege on it if they feel like things become too difficult.

It’s not that God allows a person’s vow to become meaningless by allowing them to renege on it.

It’s that God is a forgiving, merciful God that forgives past sins. But not only that, he delivers people from their suffering. If people made a mistake in their marriages, a forgiving God that delivers people from their suffering would be willing to forgive their mistakes, and allow them to remarry, instead of suffering in a state of civil divorce, but theoretical godly union that cannot be broken.

Perhaps man cannot destroy the union, but God can forgive and allow people to rebuild.

God allows suffering but also delivers us from suffering. The Vatican view fails to take this into account.