Seems like Matthew 19:9 permits divorce if spouse unfaithful

[bobcrawford]

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”

So if a spouse is unfaithful, and tells the other spouse they are no longer loved and continues to carry on with various affairs, and moves out of the house and away from the family then isn’t a divorce or Catholic annulment permitted according to the Bible?

I am sure Matthew is not just talking about one gender, but both in this instance as the man can also fornicate.

Would be interested in what other know about getting annulments in the Church given this situation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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”

So if a spouse is unfaithful, and tells the other spouse they are no longer loved and continues to carry on with various affairs, and moves out of the house and away from the family then isn’t a divorce or Catholic annulment permitted according to the Bible?

I am sure Matthew is not just talking about one gender, but both in this instance as the man can also fornicate.

Would be interested in what other know about getting annulments in the Church given this situation.

The translation you quote is erroneous.

The reason for divorce is not for the other partner, after marriage, having an affair. . .

the reason for divorce is **if that particular marriage is not valid itself.

**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.’’

**Now if two people freely consent to marry, are not previously married, and then during the marriage one ‘strays’. . .guess what, not a ‘get out of marriage free’ card from Jesus. Yes, they may separate, yes, they may even divorce civilly, but NO, the ‘innocent spouse’ cannot then go out and marry again without an annulment because, "my ex cheated on me and that’s a valid reason for me to have another marriage’.

But if two people marry, and one has been divorced already, and does not receive an annulment, well, in that case, if the non-divorced person in the marriage comes to realize it was wrong to marry a divorced person, **that person can divorce the first ‘already married and divorced’ person, and THAT person can then (hopefully after counseling with a good priest) freely marry ANOTHER person (if that’ third person’ is free to marry), because the marriage between the divorced not annuled person and the free to marry person was not valid from the start. **And THAT is what Jesus was speaking of.

 

[bobcrawford]

I don’t know how you can state the Bible is erroneous.

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

Then as you stated, if there was not a valid marriage to begin with, then the marriage is invalid. So these are two distinctly different issues.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is what Canon Law says about the rights of an innocent spouse when there is infidelity (and other reasons for separation):

*SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.*

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t know how you can state the Bible is erroneous.

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

Then as you stated, if there was not a valid marriage to begin with, then the marriage is invalid. So these are two distinctly different issues.

The Bible was not written in English. Translations can be erroneous. I have heard the better translation to be “unlawful.”

I am looking for a cite…

 

[angell1]

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”

So if a spouse is unfaithful, and tells the other spouse they are no longer loved and continues to carry on with various affairs, and moves out of the house and away from the family then isn’t a divorce or Catholic annulment permitted according to the Bible?

I am sure Matthew is not just talking about one gender, but both in this instance as the man can also fornicate.

Would be interested in what other know about getting annulments in the Church given this situation.

there’s a bit of a problem and it probably does have to do with granslation

you can’t fornicate if you are already marriage, fornication is sex between two unmarried people before marriage. if it is during marriage, is is adultery.

there was a period of betrothal in the jewish culture, where the people were considered pretyt much married. kind of the relation between mary aand joseph when he found out she was pregnant, they were betrothed, not married yet. maybe this is what he meant also

 

[bobcrawford]

OK, that’s a lot of Church legal speak which is hard to understand for the common person.

So let me say this, in the specific instance I am referring to the spouse committing adultery has let’s say mental issues.

Two, there is no remorse. There is nothing being done to rectify with situation with the innocent spouse.

Three, the innocent spouse has been going through therapy to deal with the situation. The therapist has said it is very difficult if not impossible to ever trust the spouse again. Any thinking individual knows that marriage is built on trust and when the trust no longer exist, how can such a sham marriage continue?

Four, the innocent spouse has stated she said to the spouse that he need to get therapy, and has refused. The parish priest has reached out to the spouse who committed adultery and the other spouse refuses to contact the parish priest.

Five, the adultery committing spouse has said he does not love the innocent spouse.

Six, the innocent spouse believes she has to suffer for the acts of the adultery committing spouse because of Church law.

So if the adulterous committing spouse does not want to come back, makes no effort, what is the innocent spouse to do? Live without a partner the rest of her life?

As for the Bible, Jesus refers to the Mosiac, but then clearly states, that EXCEPT for fornication, that if spouses get remarried after divorce, then they are committing adultery. Again, clearly Jesus - God is allowing for this one instance for an innocent spouse to remarry if the other commits adultery - so why is this not an automatic justification for adultery? If Jesus said it, isn’t He allowing it?

 

[bobcrawford]

Definition of Fornication: voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

So in this instance, there was and continues to be fornication.

there’s a bit of a problem and it probably does have to do with granslation

you can’t fornicate if you are already marriage, fornication is sex between two unmarried people before marriage. if it is during marriage, is is adultery.

there was a period of betrothal in the jewish culture, where the people were considered pretyt much married. kind of the relation between mary aand joseph when he found out she was pregnant, they were betrothed, not married yet. maybe this is what he meant also

 

[DAML72]

OK, that’s a lot of Church legal speak which is hard to understand for the common person.

So let me say this, in the specific instance I am referring to the spouse committing adultery has let’s say mental issues.

Two, there is no remorse. There is nothing being done to rectify with situation with the innocent spouse.

Three, the innocent spouse has been going through therapy to deal with the situation. The therapist has said it is very difficult if not impossible to ever trust the spouse again. Any thinking individual knows that marriage is built on trust and when the trust no longer exist, how can such a sham marriage continue?

Four, the innocent spouse has stated she said to the spouse that he need to get therapy, and has refused. The parish priest has reached out to the spouse who committed adultery and the other spouse refuses to contact the parish priest.

Five, the adultery committing spouse has said he does not love the innocent spouse.

Six, the innocent spouse believes she has to suffer for the acts of the adultery committing spouse because of Church law.

So if the adulterous committing spouse does not want to come back, makes no effort, what is the innocent spouse to do? Live without a partner the rest of her life?

As for the Bible, Jesus refers to the Mosiac, but then clearly states, that EXCEPT for fornication, that if spouses get remarried after divorce, then they are committing adultery. Again, clearly Jesus - God is allowing for this one instance for an innocent spouse to remarry if the other commits adultery - so why is this not an automatic justification for adultery? If Jesus said it, isn’t He allowing it?

Under the aforementioned cannon law, it seems she can separate and even seek a divorce. HOWEVER, she can not remarry unless and until she seeks and is granted and annulment.

 

[EasterJoy]

OK, that’s a lot of Church legal speak which is hard to understand for the common person.

So let me say this, in the specific instance I am referring to the spouse committing adultery has let’s say mental issues.

Two, there is no remorse. There is nothing being done to rectify with situation with the innocent spouse.

Three, the innocent spouse has been going through therapy to coup with the situation. The therapist has said it is very difficult if not impossible to ever trust the spouse again. Any thinking individual knows that marriage is built on trust and when the trust no longer exist, how can such a sham marriage continue?

Four, the innocent spouse has stated she said to the spouse that he need to get therapy, and has refused. The parish priest has reached out to the spouse who committed adultery and the other spouse refuses to contact the parish priest.

Five, the adultery committing spouse has said he does not love the innocent spouse.

Six, the innocent spouse believes she has to suffer for the acts of the adultery committing spouse because of Church law.

So if the adulterous committing spouse does not want to come back, makes no effort, what is the innocent spouse to do? Live without a partner the rest of her life?

As for the Bible, Jesus refers to the Mosiac, but then clearly states, that EXCEPT for fornication, that if spouses get remarried after divorce, then they are committing adultery. Again, clearly Jesus - God is allowing for this one instance for an innocent spouse to remarry if the other commits adultery - so why is this not an automatic justification for adultery? If Jesus said it, isn’t He allowing it?

OK, here is the run-down. If you are married, you have a duty to live with your spouse as a spouse, unless you have a legitimate excuse.

If your spouse committed adultery of which you were innocent–didn’t approve it, didn’t do the same thing yourself, et cetera–you have the right to severe the common conjugal life. Your spouse doesn’t have to have any proven mental illness, you don’t have to have cause for a decree of nullity. You don’t have to take that sort of betrayal, and you do not have to take a situation that causes harm to you or your children, including serious emotional harm. If your spouse is repentant, sure, the Church says it is laudable to accept that repentance and try to repair the marriage. The Church does say “repentant,” though. The Church does not ask that the unrepentant spouse be endured, and certainly does not require innocent spouses what amounts to emotional abuse!

If it is necessary in order to justly apportion your assets and responsibilities–for instance, to fairly apportion time with children, protect the financial means you have for self-support, and so on–then it is often permissible for a spouses excused from the common conjugal life to get a civil divorce.

Only once you have a civil divorce will the Church investigate a petition for a decree of nullity. The Church doesn’t want to alienate the spouses from each other by the process of investigating the marriage, for one thing.

It sounds as if you are talking about a very devout and faithful person. Find her a good priest whose word she will trust on these matters, and ask her to talk to that priest about her situation. He can advise her both about whether or not she is likely to have an invalid marriage and also point out to her that staying in a harmful situation is not necessarily the most virtuous course even if her marriage is valid. She is more likely to believe you than him.

If you have technical questions about all of this or just need a translation for a common person from a party experienced in the investigation of this kind of a case, post your questions on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. That’s where you are most likely to find posters who have real experience in canon law with regards to marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

Under the aforementioned cannon law, it seems she can separate and even seek a divorce. HOWEVER, she can not remarry unless and until she seeks and is granted and annulment.

If she hesitates to separate and get a civil divorce because she is afraid she won’t be able to re-marry, she ought to be encouraged to discuss her situation with someone who can help her see whether or not her current situation is damaging. There are worse things than being alone and unable to re-marry, as scary as that may sound to her. Living as the repeatedly wronged spouse of someone who feels free to tell you that violations of your trust do not deserve regret or repentance, that your relationship does not merit the work of counselling, and especially that you are not worthy of your spouse’s previous promise of faithful love are examples of those things. This is why the Church allows her to separate, even if she is in a valid marriage that has fallen victim to one person’s willful choice to choose mortal sin over the married love they promised.

Besides, if her hope is to have her husband come back and repent from his sin against her and against God, it may be that having her around and willing to allow his continual mortal sin is not the way to accomplish that with him. He may be more likely to come to his senses (eventually) if she refuses to have anything to do with his infidelities. That is the way I would bet. On that account, I think that separating and being prepared to divorce, if necessary, might be the best thing for both of them.

I would never say that out of hand. She ought to be willing to believe her pastor, however, if he tells her so. If she is innocent (did not approve of this infidelity nor do the same herself), she has the right under canon law to end this situation by her own authority. The Church recognizes that she has that right. There is a reason for that.

 

[L_Marshall]

Perhaps I can be of assistance.

The verse you cited, with the problem word in the original language is as follows:
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for πορνεία, porneia], and shall marry another, committeth adultery:and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”

The word in question is translated as “unlawful union.” The union in question refers to the union between the married couple. This means that divorce is not permitted, except when the union was never lawful in the first place. In Catholic theology, since marriage is an act of jurisdiction, the marriage must be lawful to be valid.

It’s important when choosing a Bible to use one that’s been approved by a Catholic Bishop’s conference. Usually there’s a special statement called imprimatur in the front if it’s approved. An imprimatur is only awarded if the translation is found to be nihil obstat (without error). Many popular English language Bibles (e.g.: The King James Bible) do not have an imprimatur because they have translation errors.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t know how you can state the Bible is erroneous.

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

Then as you stated, if there was not a valid marriage to begin with, then the marriage is invalid. So these are two distinctly different issues.

The Bible is not erroneous --your translation of the words Jesus used and your interpretation thereof is erroneous. Big difference.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m not so sure your words are erroneous. In the situation you describe, I’d say that the innocent spouse has about a 99% chance of getting a church annulment if he or she wanted it. There in lies the crux of the issue though. A Catholic cannot award themselves an annulment, they still have to go trough the “hoops” no matter what the cause is.

I have a friend who was married in the church and has children. One day, her husband came home and announced to her that he was gay. He was quite happy to remain in the marriage assuming she understood that he fully intended to have sex outside the marriage with other men. The wife was heart broken and actually tried living with this arrangement for several months rather than throw in the towel because she genuinely loved him. As she told me, “He had at one point been heterosexual and perhaps he’d be so again.” (Yeah, right!)

After several months, the man hadn’t changed at all and the woman was nearly having a nervous breakdown. I told her to slap him with a civil divorce and if that didn’t make him rethink, then he wasn’t merely asleep, he was dead at the wheel. Ultimately, she saw a psychiatrist who gave her pretty much the same advice I had but even more, he pointed out that she could change anything in her life to please him but it still wouldn’t help the marriage unless she could and would change her sex! The bottom line is that this woman did finally file for a civil divorce and then a Catholic annulment and is now completely rid of husband #1 and dating a really nice man.

The Catholic Church doesn’t expect either spouse to just accept any behavior from their spouse. I suspect that a spouse who had been cheated on could get an annulment easily enough–if he or she were willing to jump through the hoops. But the person has to be willing to apply for one.

 

[sousley]

Definition of Fornication: voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

So in this instance, there was and continues to be fornication.

Hi bobcrawford. L Marshall has this one. You have to be careful with applying modern definitions as they can be subject to cultural usage; this may not align well with the biblical culture. The issue is one of “breaking faith”.

A valid marriage is one that is contracted with God joining the couple in the sacrament of matrimony and involves elements of faith, some laid out in the Bible, such as: A husband shall love his wife as Christ loves the Church. A man (and woman) are to concern themselves with each others’ salvation and raising a holy family. This is “lawful” (God’s law, not man’s)

Remember when people used to vow “lawfully wedded wife” before the age of writing your own vows?

Adultery is a “breaking of the faith” which is a mortal sin. Fornication does not involve itself with faith, but instead sex for other motivation, such as lust (which is considered idolatry). As others have stated, the question is "was the marriage valid in the first place (lawful). Did they leave, cleave, and the two become one? Was it a marriage of economic convenience? Was there an attempt or mature faculty to live out a Christian marriage? etc. etc.

It is possible to be involved in a marriage that was not validly lawful in that it lacked components for a Christian Marriage, and in fact be fornicating because the element of faith in the marriage is not present. Where the text says “fornication or unlawful (better)” it is referring to a union where a Christian marriage does not exist. It can be invalidly married or not married at all, but a union that doesn’t “break faith” because faith was lacking in the first place. Adultery Always breaks faith.

 

[sousley]

I suspect that a spouse who had been cheated on could get an annulment easily enough–if he or she were willing to jump through the hoops.

True enough that a person needs to take that step in asking the Church to investigate the validity of the marriage; I disagree that such a morally important matter for the tribunal should be described as “hoop-jumping.” We are called to forgive and imitate God’s perpetual forgiveness of fallen Israel and ourselves.
That said, if there is a demonstrated pattern of sexual partners by a party prior to the marriage, and adultery afterward, this pattern might indicate that the party was not of sufficient maturity to engage in Christian marriage and could be found invalid. It is not necessarily true that an occasion of unfaithfulness would warrant an annulment “easily enough.” We don’t want to view the annulment process as an arbitrary formality.

 

[phil19034]

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

OK, that’s a lot of Church legal speak which is hard to understand for the common person.

So let me say this, in the specific instance I am referring to the spouse committing adultery has let’s say mental issues.

Two, there is no remorse. There is nothing being done to rectify with situation with the innocent spouse. ** * if it is true that there is no remorse, it makes me wonder if there ever was a real, sacramental marriage to begin with. Typically, there is remorse, even if the spouse keeps cheating. No remorse is pretty cold. ***

Three, the innocent spouse has been going through therapy to deal with the situation. The therapist has said it is very difficult if not impossible to ever trust the spouse again. Any thinking individual knows that marriage is built on trust and when the trust no longer exist, how can such a sham marriage continue? *** Personally, I would only trust a Catholic priest or a therapist who is Catholic. That’s not to say that the therapist is right or wrong, but I would personally feel better with one who believes in the Sacrament of Marriage. ***

Four, the innocent spouse has stated she said to the spouse that he need to get therapy, and has refused. The parish priest has reached out to the spouse who committed adultery and the other spouse refuses to contact the parish priest. *** to me, this shows a lack of respect for the Church and the Sacrament of Marriage ***

Five, the adultery committing spouse has said he does not love the innocent spouse. *** again, this is pretty cold. makes me wonder if he was ever in a Sacramental Marriage ***

Six, the innocent spouse believes she has to suffer for the acts of the adultery committing spouse because of Church law. *** She should NOT feel like she should have to suffer. There is NOTHING wrong with a Catholic getting divorced due to the actions of the other spouse. It’s just that a divorcée must get remarried unless the first marriage is annulled. ***

So if the adulterous committing spouse does not want to come back, makes no effort, what is the innocent spouse to do? Live without a partner the rest of her life? *** seek an annulment. perhaps even seek the help of a Annulment Advocate. Check out catholicsdivorce.com/***

As for the Bible, Jesus refers to the Mosiac, but then clearly states, that EXCEPT for fornication, that if spouses get remarried after divorce, then they are committing adultery. Again, clearly Jesus - God is allowing for this one instance for an innocent spouse to remarry if the other commits adultery - so why is this not an automatic justification for adultery? If Jesus said it, isn’t He allowing it? *** I used to believe that this meant that if you married someone you thought to be a virgin and then found out that she was not on the wedding bed, you may have it annulled. But now I understand it to be really something sexual in nature which happened before or at the time of marriage which invalidated the marriage; hence prevented it from ever being sacramental

As FYI - RSV-CE Bible actually translates this as:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.***

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

True enough that a person needs to take that step in asking the Church to investigate the validity of the marriage; I disagree that such a morally important matter for the tribunal should be described as “hoop-jumping.” We are called to forgive and imitate God’s perpetual forgiveness of fallen Israel and ourselves.
That said, if there is a demonstrated pattern of sexual partners by a party prior to the marriage, and adultery afterward, this pattern might indicate that the party was not of sufficient maturity to engage in Christian marriage and could be found invalid. It is not necessarily true that an occasion of unfaithfulness would warrant an annulment “easily enough.” We don’t want to view the annulment process as an arbitrary formality.

If there is infidelity, however, the innocent spouse has the right to separate and cut off the common conjugal life entirely. This is true even if the marriage is valid; that is, the Church does not force the faithful to share their beds with spouses who have violated the marriage bed. Forgiveness is encouraged when there is repentance, but without repentance, there are no grounds for reconciliation. A spouse might elect to excuse the inexcusable, but there that might or might not work in favor of the eventual repentance and eternal reclamation of the soul of the unfaithful spouse. (Which is, after all, always the bottom line when it comes to “suffering for the marriage,” isn’t it?)

 

[CaptainPicard]

In the Greek, the word for fornication there is porniea, which shares the same root with “pornography”. Some translations have “fornication” or “immorality” or “adultery” or “unchastity”.

The Catholic interpretation is that the “unchastity” in question doesn’t refer to some external act, but to the marriage itself. So it’s not that one partner went and cheated, but that the marriage was unchaste to begin with. For instance, if a brother and sister wed, or if somebody who divorced and remarried. That relationship itself would be “unchaste” and in fact would be no marriage. An example of this is when Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman at the well, he points out that the man currently with her is not her husband – the likely interpretation is because she had been married four times already, so she wasn’t eligible to be remarried.

This makes sense because otherwise the clause about unchastity would in effect nullify everything Christ just said. He just made a big deal about being different from Moses and not allowing divorce. It’s incongruent to think that “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” would be followed by “except for the man your wife just cheated on you with”.

When I looked up other cases where “porn” root words were translated in the bible, it’s always translated as more generic immorality, not adultery. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where Paul lists different immoral types of people who can’t inherit the kingdom, both the sexually immoral (Greek: pornoi) and the adulterers (Greek: moichoi) are listed separately. So it seems that Paul wouldn’t read the porniea in Matthew’s account as meaning “adultery”, as he distinguishes the two here.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know how you can state the Bible is erroneous.

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

The Greek word used is porniea, which is a term that describes a number of sexual deviations ( incest, the sex with a prostitute etc…).

While it includes unfaithfulness, it is a marriage either totally unlawful ( such as incestual) or when the other is viewed as a prostitute. That the person ENTERED into the marriage with the view of being no more faithful than one would be to a prostitute.

That said, the Church DOES allow a couple to separate if the other has committed adultery. But ‘divorce’ in this case does not mean that the person may remarry.

As that too would be adultery.