Seems like Matthew 19:9 permits divorce if spouse unfaithful

[bobcrawford]

Thanks for these additional comments.

First, I will look into various translations of Matthew 19:9 for Church approved translations.

Second, I have heard that with annulments, the Church only looks at their decision making process prior to the marriage and not what the spouse has done in the marriage.

She also started dating a man who went through similar situation when his spouse cheated on him and was an alcoholic. His situation is different in that she was pregnant prior to marriage so it was as some would say a rather forced marriage. Not shotgun, but the old right thing to do, but found out later, maybe not so much.

In any case, if both cannot get annulments it will be a situation I fear that they will marry any way because if the Church leaves them, they will just leave the Church.

Difficult situations to deal with in these modern times as cheating spouses seems to be quite prevalent and it is hard for a woman with children to make it on her own without a real spouse to provide emotional support.

 

[Brendan]

.

Second, I have heard that with annulments, the Church only looks at their decision making process prior to the marriage and not what the spouse has done in the marriage.

What the Church looks at is if a marriage was validly contracted. That does involve looking that the intent of the couple at the moment they exchanged vows.

That said, there are factors that became evident after that moment that could have impacted the moment itself.

You had mentioned mental illness. If that condition had existed at the moment vows were exchanged, it might have an impact on the validity of marriage.

If the cause of the mental illness came after, such as from a head injury or as a result of another contracted illness, it would not have impacted the validity of the vows.

But you are essentially correct, it focuses on the moment of the exchange of vows. Either the vows were validly exchanged, in which the marriage is not dissolvable ( what God has joined, let no man divide). Or the vows were impeded from being valid, in which case, there was no marriage at all.

So the determination of a Tribunal must, by definition, focus on if, in fact, God DID join the couple when they exchanged vows. If He did, the marriage cannot be dissolved. If He did not, then there is nothing to dissolve.

Difficult situations to deal with in these modern times as cheating spouses seems to be quite prevalent and it is hard for a woman with children to make it on her own without a real spouse to provide emotional support.

Unfortunately, the situation you describe has been common throughout all of recorded history.

 

[bobcrawford]

I’m not an expert or theologian, but I’m going to take a shot at answering a few of these:

Also, the following link from a Forum on the Coming Home Network had this to say about this same topic: forum.chnetwork.org/index.php?topic=9175.0

If this person might one day wish to date and/or remarry, I would suggest starting the annulment process now. Also, reading everything she can on how to be best handle the annulment process. check out rosesweet.com and other links from the catholicsdivorce.com website.

Hope this helps.

God Bless.

She gave her current husband three months to seek therapy, talk with the parish priests, and after no movement, she moved forward with civil divorce. That is still on-going as the lawyers work out all the financials including child support. Nothing has changed.

As you know, you cannot seek annulment until the civil divorce is final. There were a lot of warning signs prior to marriage but she ignored them and went forward anyway.

But after reading elsewhere on the forum, she is not going to wait years for an annulment before getting remarried. She wants more children and the time clock clicks away for women, but the Church does not seem to recognize the urgency of the fertile clock of women as they seem to take a long time in working through these annulments.

The sad thing today is that a single stay-at-home mother is really put at a disadvantage when they have a cheating non-loving spouse. It seems as if the woman (or if reversed, the man) has to pay for the sins of their partner who broke the vow. This can leave a spouse without adequate housing and healthcare unless they find another suitable marriage partner.

I find the comments of some people here, while it follows strict Church teaching, that they probably never had to go through such a situation with a close friend or family member. Else they might also feel differently from the Church.

 

[bobcrawford]

Unfortunately, the situation you describe has been common throughout all of recorded history.

Except having healthcare was not a concern back when there was no real healthcare. Paying for Catholic School tuition was not as big as an issue 30 years ago when schools were staffed with priests and nuns. Food, energy, etc. was also much less then. It is a very different world today and basic life continues to be much more challenging.

For the Church to expect a woman to live alone throughout the rest of her life because of a cheating non-repentent husband is sentencing someone for the sins of another.

JMHO

 

[mommamaree]

Bobcatholic,
My mom went through a similar situation. When I was an infant, my father packed up all her belongings and mine, too, and put them by the door, and when she came home, she was told to leave. That was that. I do not know which one of them initiated the divorce after he kicked her and I out. We were absolutely destitute. She had to sell all her valuables, just in order to afford groceries, gas and rent. She was barely making it, despite working full-time in the health care field. She regularly went without dinner. She felt she had to marry in order to provide for me, and so she married the first man who would have us. Looking back, that was a horrible decision, and it led to decades of unhappy marriage and finally, a divorce. The conditions of duress under which she married were one of the things that she brought up in seeking an annulment when she sought to enter the Catholic Church a couple years ago.

Just in talking about it, despite our poverty, her memories of that time just the two of us were happy ones. Yet her marriage, which provided financial security, made her profoundly unhappy. I know now that the Catholic Church has ways of providing, at the parish level, financial assistance for people in such a situation (which my own mother has been able to do when since she joined her parish).

With regards to entering another marriage, it is a decision which seems to be taken so lightly by our society, and I worry that women who are already vulnerable might just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Jesus had stern words for those husband who “put away” their wives, because of this very real problem. It is a reality which has not really changed in thousands of years. Divorced women are statistically likely to be living below the poverty line. But that is not a good reason to marry again (especially without an annulment). That is why the Church, from the apostles to our current-day bishops, have urged Christian to support the widow and the orphan, and to provide for the needs of those families who cannot support themselves.

 

[InNomineDomini]

It is very clear. If the spouse commits adultery (fornication), then divorce is permitted.

Just to make this as easy as possible: being free to get divorced does not imply a person is free to marry someone else afterwards.

The Catholic Church does not forbid civil divorce under certain conditions, and neither does it thereby hold such a divorce to be the dissolving of a valid marriage.

There are conditions where it is positively dangerous for a couple to remain together without separation, and the Church takes this into consideration.

 

[EasterJoy]

Bobcatholic,
My mom went through a similar situation. When I was an infant, my father packed up all her belongings and mine, too, and put them by the door, and when she came home, she was told to leave. That was that. I do not know which one of them initiated the divorce after he kicked her and I out. We were absolutely destitute. She had to sell all her valuables, just in order to afford groceries, gas and rent. She was barely making it, despite working full-time in the health care field. She regularly went without dinner. She felt she had to marry in order to provide for me, and so she married the first man who would have us. Looking back, that was a horrible decision, and it led to decades of unhappy marriage and finally, a divorce. The conditions of duress under which she married were one of the things that she brought up in seeking an annulment when she sought to enter the Catholic Church a couple years ago.

Just in talking about it, despite our poverty, her memories of that time just the two of us were happy ones. Yet her marriage, which provided financial security, made her profoundly unhappy. I know now that the Catholic Church has ways of providing, at the parish level, financial assistance for people in such a situation (which my own mother has been able to do when since she joined her parish).

With regards to entering another marriage, it is a decision which seems to be taken so lightly by our society, and I worry that women who are already vulnerable might just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Jesus had stern words for those husband who “put away” their wives, because of this very real problem. It is a reality which has not really changed in thousands of years. Divorced women are statistically likely to be living below the poverty line. But that is not a good reason to marry again (especially without an annulment). That is why the Church, from the apostles to our current-day bishops, have urged Christian to support the widow and the orphan, and to provide for the needs of those families who cannot support themselves.

This is what Our Lord meant when he said that the one who divorces his wife forces her to commit adultery. In his times, marriage could be literally the only way a woman could keep body and soul together, not only fed but safe from the violations of strangers.

 

[mommamaree]

My apologies, I should have addressed this to bobcrawford. I must have read too quickly and got the forum names mixed up.

Bobcatholic,
My mom went through a similar situation. When I was an infant, my father packed up all her belongings and mine, too, and put them by the door, and when she came home, she was told to leave. That was that. I do not know which one of them initiated the divorce after he kicked her and I out. We were absolutely destitute. She had to sell all her valuables, just in order to afford groceries, gas and rent. She was barely making it, despite working full-time in the health care field. She regularly went without dinner. She felt she had to marry in order to provide for me, and so she married the first man who would have us. Looking back, that was a horrible decision, and it led to decades of unhappy marriage and finally, a divorce. The conditions of duress under which she married were one of the things that she brought up in seeking an annulment when she sought to enter the Catholic Church a couple years ago.

Just in talking about it, despite our poverty, her memories of that time just the two of us were happy ones. Yet her marriage, which provided financial security, made her profoundly unhappy. I know now that the Catholic Church has ways of providing, at the parish level, financial assistance for people in such a situation (which my own mother has been able to do when since she joined her parish).

With regards to entering another marriage, it is a decision which seems to be taken so lightly by our society, and I worry that women who are already vulnerable might just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Jesus had stern words for those husband who “put away” their wives, because of this very real problem. It is a reality which has not really changed in thousands of years. Divorced women are statistically likely to be living below the poverty line. But that is not a good reason to marry again (especially without an annulment). That is why the Church, from the apostles to our current-day bishops, have urged Christian to support the widow and the orphan, and to provide for the needs of those families who cannot support themselves.

 

[EasterJoy]

Just to make this as easy as possible: being free to get divorced does not imply a person is free to marry someone else afterwards.

The Catholic Church does not forbid civil divorce under certain conditions, and neither does it thereby hold such a divorce to be the dissolving of a valid marriage.

There are conditions where it is positively dangerous for a couple to remain together without separation, and the Church takes this into consideration.

The conditions for separation while the bond is presumed to remain (that is, invalidity has not yet been shown) do include danger (mental or emotional), but also include an untenable degree of difficulty in getting along and unapproved infidelity. A couple is not bound to live together in a house in which peaceful coexistence has proven impossible.

Yes, the conditions for proving an attempt at marriage was invalid go beyond this, as it is necessary in that case to prove that a valid marriage never existed. If someone claims, “I married with the intention of being faithful,” however, but never went three months without violating his vows, the charge of incapacity could be fairly made. In that case, get professional consultation. It does pay to talk to someone who knows this area of canon law.

 

[runningdude]

I submitted a question days ago to an apologist asking about Catholic faith and divorce.

I read the following in Matthew 19:9:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”
…

“Fornication” means any unlawful sexual encounter. If a man and women are unlawfully married, they are fornicating. A valid exception to the general prohibition against divorce is when the marriage is unlawful in this manner.

The New American Bible, published by the Catholic bishops, translates Matthew 19:9 more directly:

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (usccb.org/bible/matthew/19)

 

[runningdude]

…

Let me explain. As Scripture tells us, in the time of Jesus, the Jews permitted divorce through the law of Moses. Therefore, there were people in Jesus’ time (and these were the people He was talking about) who, on entering into a second marriage (having ‘divorced’ a first partner, or who were marrying a person who had divorced) and thus these people were committing adultery or fornication (even though married under that Jewish law), in the eyes of God.’’
…

This isn’t quite correct. Divorce under Mosaic Law did in fact dissolve the marriage. There was no fornication if there was a remarriage - how could following God’s Law lead one to sin!

Marriage can be dissolved if both parties are unbaptized. Mosaic Law freely permitted divorce, which was a concession to their “hardness of hearts”. When Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament among baptized Christians, the sacramental union became insoluble following consummation. Even today, Canon Law allows the Pope to divorce an unbaptized couple under certain circumstances, such as when one party wishes to remarry a baptized Catholic (See Pauline Privilege and Petrine Privilege).

Matthew 19:9 would seem to me then more of an allusion to the annulment procedure to determine if the divorce marriage were in fact unlawful.

 

[EasterJoy]

…For the Church to expect a woman to live alone throughout the rest of her life because of a cheating non-repentent husband is sentencing someone for the sins of another.

JMHO

This is just a way of saying the Church ought to allow divorce, with the defense being that your interpretation of Scriptures ought to have more weight than those with the office to judge these questions.

Yes, the leaders of the Church have a grave duty to do right by those they shepherd, not laying heavy loads on that were not necessary. No, this does not mean they can give short shrift to their duty to give the validity of a marriage the benefit of the doubt, so as not to part what God has allowed to be joined.

It is the husband she trusted and who wronged her by bad faith who sentenced her. The Church, after all, did not choose this fellow for her. She did choose him. If she chose someone who made vows in bad faith, she owes it to marriage itself to show this. Marriage must have the benefit of the doubt. It is hard, but it is the best way. Our Lord said it was to appease hardness of heart that Moses allowed divorce. Our bishops may not make that same mistake.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is just a way of saying the Church ought to allow divorce, with the defense being that your interpretation of Scriptures ought to have more weight than those with the office to judge these questions.

I’m no linguistic scholar, but there are most definitely Greek scholars whose interpretation of “porneia” is different from the definition that Catholic Church holds.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m no linguistic scholar, but there are most definitely Greek scholars whose interpretation of “porneia” is different from the definition that Catholic Church holds.

If I know what the Catholic Church holds that the passage has to do with the whole of moral law having to do with marriage, what do the debates of Greek scholars have to do with the OP’s actual questions concerning annulments and divorces of Catholics?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (usccb.org/bible/matthew/19)

Whatever we might say about Catholic teaching, the above is a horrible translation of the Greek. “Porneia” is “grossly immoral sexual conduct”. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

In the Greek mind, it would summon up the notion of a married woman who shamelessly slept with numerous other men, or a married man who raped other men’s wives. The application of the term is broader than that, but those would be some paradigm cases.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If I know what the Catholic Church holds that the passage has to do with the whole of moral law having to do with marriage, what do the debates of Greek scholars have to do with the OP’s actual questions concerning annulments and divorces of Catholics?

The OP is questioning the issue that includes sexual immoralities that are included in the definition of the word on which the Catholic teaching is based. Obviously the Catholic interpretation also includes Tradition.

 

[runningdude]

Whatever we might say about Catholic teaching, the above is a horrible translation of the Greek. “Porneia” is “grossly immoral sexual conduct”. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

In the Greek mind, it would summon up the notion of a married woman who shamelessly slept with numerous other men, or a married man who raped other men’s wives. The application of the term is broader than that, but those would be some paradigm cases.

The NAB note on Matthew 5:31-32 (usccb.org/bible/mt/5:31#48005031-1), which parallels Matthew 19:9.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The NAB note on Matthew 5:31-32 (usccb.org/bible/mt/5:31#48005031-1), which parallels Matthew 19:9.

The NAB note is simply not plausible to me. Here’s the relevant part:

It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

The translation of “porneia” as “incest” does not work, especially not in the passages in Acts. Acts 15:20 reads:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality (porneia), from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

James (the speaker) is saying that the Gentiles should conform to Judaic ethics – which in many ways corresponded with Roman ethics, but not in the matters of food, sacrifice, and sex. The people James was talking to regularly engaged in fornication, sodomy, pedophilia and the like – are we to believe that James was objecting merely to their practice of a certain type of incest?

Sometimes the Scriptures are just difficult. This is one of the cases. I have no personal objection to Catholic teachings on marriage and divorce, but I don’t find this particular argument in the NAB Study Bible to be insightful or illuminating.

 

[runningdude]

The NAB note is simply not plausible to me. Here’s the relevant part:

The translation of “porneia” as “incest” does not work, especially not in the passages in Acts. Acts 15:20 reads:

Incest would simply be one possible form among many form of sexual immorality. Any of the other forms you have listed (sodomy, pedophilia) would also be capable of rendering a marriage unlawful

Sometimes the Scriptures are just difficult. This is one of the cases. I have no personal objection to Catholic teachings on marriage and divorce, but I don’t find this particular argument in the NAB Study Bible to be insightful or illuminating.

The translation here should be understood as a literal translation of “porneia” as “unlawful”, but as a dynamic translation of the meaning of the passage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Incest would simply be one possible form among many form of sexual immorality. Any of the other forms you have listed (sodomy, pedophilia) would also be capable of rendering a marriage unlawful

But then shouldn’t we understand the “except for cases of porneia” clause to cover all such cases? If so, then there is at the very least some tension between this clause and Catholic teachings on annulment.