Seems like Matthew 19:9 permits divorce if spouse unfaithful

[bobcrawford]

An interesting note in the Challoner Notes on the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible:

Yes, agreed, if a husband puts away his wife - except in cases of fornication, and remarries another, commits adultery. However, it clearly seems to me that if he puts away his wife - due to adultery - then marries another, it is NOT adultery.

 

[runningdude]

Yes, agreed, if a husband puts away his wife - except in cases of fornication, and remarries another, commits adultery. However, it clearly seems to me that if he puts away his wife - due to adultery - then marries another, it is NOT adultery.

I understand that to be your position, but that is not what the explanatory note said.

 

[runningdude]

Oh, I would have thought we all agreed about that. Has anyone in this thread proposed that there could be an actual marriage between people of the same sex, or between mother and son?

The situation is either: Matthew substituting a broader Greek word (as Bob suggest), Christ clarifying that unlawful marriages based on a grossly immoral sexual union may be dissolved (my interpretation, based on the NAB note), or that a spouse who commits adultery may be “put away”, but remarriage is still not possible (based on the Chanoller note). Or there may be some other explanation.

We all seem to agree that a valid sacramental marriage is insoluble.

 

[Thorns]

An interesting note in the Challoner Notes on the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible:

I dont get how the Challoner note stretches that the husband thats puts the adulterous wife away cannot marry as long as shes alive. Jesus’ words say nothing of the sort.

Did Jesus give an exception? Yes or no.

 

[runningdude]

I dont get how the Challoner note stretches that the husband thats puts the adulterous wife away cannot marry as long as shes alive. Jesus’ words say nothing of the sort.

Did Jesus give an exception? Yes or no.

The Catholic Church certainly does not interpret the passage to allow remarriage in the even of adultery if a valid, insoluble sacramental marriage is present. There is thus no exception. Saint Paul’s epistles make clear that a remarriage attempt following a valid marriage is adultery, if there is any lingering confusion about Christ’s meaning in the Gospel.

The dispute in this thread is what exactly is meant by this passage; it is a dispute of semantics rather than theology. The Challoner notes are one eighteenth century bishop’s interpretation of the particular issue address by the passage. In addition to Challoner’s, my interpretation is that Christ is clarifying that an invalid marriage may be dissolved, and Bob Crawford’s position is that infidelity is prima facia evidence that a marriage is invalid.

 

[Thorns]

The Catholic Church certainly does not interpret the passage to allow remarriage in the even of adultery if a valid, insoluble sacramental marriage is present. There is thus no exception. Saint Paul’s epistles make clear that a remarriage attempt following a valid marriage is adultery, if there is any lingering confusion about Christ’s meaning in the Gospel.

The dispute in this thread is what exactly is meant by this passage; it is a dispute of semantics rather than theology. The Challoner notes are one eighteenth century bishop’s interpretation of the particular issue address by the passage. In addition to Challoner’s, my interpretation is that Christ is clarifying that an invalid marriage may be dissolved, and Bob Crawford’s position is that infidelity is prima facia evidence that a marriage is invalid.

It sounds like St Paul is saying divorce and remarriage for no good reason is bad, but did St Paul comment on the pornea issue?

How did the Church come up with “no remarriage if the spouse is still living” if Jesus did not say that? Jesus is pretty clear with the exception: sexual immorality. So a man who puts away his wife and remarries another, does not commit adultery according to an understanding of Jesus’ very clear and simple words, no? Where did the other part come from?

 

[runningdude]

It sounds like St Paul is saying divorce and remarriage for no good reason is bad, but did St Paul comment on the pornea issue?

How did the Church come up with “no remarriage if the spouse is still living” if Jesus did not say that? Jesus is pretty clear with the exception: sexual immorality. So a man who puts away his wife and remarries another, does not commit adultery according to an understanding of Jesus’ very clear and simple words, no? Where did the other part come from?

I have shared the church’s explicit teaching. You will have to consult the Catechism or another source to learn the details. The discussion here accepts and assumes the church’s teaching.