Seems like Matthew 19:9 permits divorce if spouse unfaithful

[Thorns]

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”.

By your logic, we should not even be using the Bible because it is outdated and doesn’t apply to modern times or our different culture?

 

[Thorns]

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?

What does porneia actually mean as opposed to what the Catholic Church wants it to mean?

Does it just mean sexual immorality? Is fornication not sexually immoral? It would appear thar Jesus made an exception of divorce for this.

 

[bobcrawford]

This is the whole issue with the Bible and Christianity as a whole. No one can agree on the interpretation. We argue over the meaning of Greek words when Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Did the author even do a correct translation from Aramaic to Greek?

People will use the Old Testament to back up something in the New Testament (Jesus said he was not here to destroy the old law), but when that does not work as in the case of divorce which was permitted under Mosiac Law, then they use the argument that Jesus created a new covenant.

So people will say that only the Catholic Church can make the correct interpretation of the Bible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit! Therefore some how we must accept that the Holy Spirit only guides the Catholic Church that no one else reading and interpreting the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit.

This stuff really drives me nuts.

I believe that Jesus in His infinite wisdom did not expect one spouse to continue to suffer for the actions of the other spouse. If one spouse (guilty spouse) committed acts that broke the bond of marriage, there never was a marriage since said spouse was predisposed to that action and therefore never committed to the marriage from the on-set. Jesus knew this and made said exception.

 

[Starrsmother]

This is the whole issue with the Bible and Christianity as a whole. No one can agree on the interpretation. We argue over the meaning of Greek words when Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Did the author even do a correct translation from Aramaic to Greek?

People will use the Old Testament to back up something in the New Testament (Jesus said he was not hear to destroy the old law), but when that does not work as in the case of divorce which was permitted under Mosiac Law, then they use the argument that Jesus created a new covenant.

So people will say that only the Catholic Church can make the correct interpretation of the Bible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit! Therefore some how we must accept that the Holy Spirit only guides the Catholic Church that no one else reading and interpreting the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit.

This stuff really drives me nuts.

I believe that Jesus in His infinite wisdom did not expect one spouse to continue to suffer for the actions of the other spouse. If one spouse (guilty spouse) committed acts that broke the bond of marriage, there never was a marriage since said spouse was predisposed to that action and therefore never committed to the marriage from the on-set. Jesus knew this and made said exception.

I’m probably stepping on a land mine here along with you, but I kind of agree with you. People can change after marriage–and sometimes those changes can make two people living together a living hell. It’s never good even for the kids involved in and resulting from a marriage gone horribly awry to live in a state of perpetual warfare. I think a marriage is always best served if everyone involved is willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Having said that, if things simply can’t change or one spouse, for instance, continually cheats on the other spouse, is into porn or whatever, there should be a stream-lined way to annul it. This is something that I hope and pray that the Pope and bishops will take on at their synod this Fall. To begin with, currently the annulment process differs in time, cost and many other things from one parish to another. This is wrong on top of being just plain silly.

If my husband and I divorced, I’d immediately begin the annulment process just to be sure I had all my ducks in a row before I even began dating. Sadly, not all divorcing people remember to think of this. While yes, a Catholic can continue to go to Mass if they divorce and remarry without an annulment in place, it’s totally ridiculous to think people will do this. If they can’t participate in the sacraments they feel like they aren’t really able to be fully Catholic and often either just quit going to church at all or change to a protestant sect. That is simply how it really works in this world. Either way, when we lose a custodial parent, we usually lose the kids as Catholics too in most cases. I’m really glad to see Pope Francis willing to at least look at the situation and I am hopeful and pray that he can find a way to streamline things!

 

[bobcrawford]

I’m probably stepping on a land mine here along with you, but I kind of agree with you. People can change after marriage–and sometimes those changes can make two people living together a living hell. It’s never good even for the kids involved in and resulting from a marriage gone horribly awry to live in a state of perpetual warfare. I think a marriage is always best served if everyone involved is willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Having said that, if things simply can’t change or one spouse, for instance, continually cheats on the other spouse, is into porn or whatever, there should be a stream-lined way to annul it. This is something that I hope and pray that the Pope and bishops will take on at their synod this Fall. To begin with, currently the annulment process differs in time, cost and many other things from one parish to another. This is wrong on top of being just plain silly.

If my husband and I divorced, I’d immediately begin the annulment process just to be sure I had all my ducks in a row before I even began dating. Sadly, not all divorcing people remember to think of this. While yes, a Catholic can continue to go to Mass if they divorce and remarry without an annulment in place, it’s totally ridiculous to think people will do this. If they can’t participate in the sacraments they feel like they aren’t really able to be fully Catholic and often either just quit going to church at all or change to a protestant sect. That is simply how it really works in this world. Either way, when we lose a custodial parent, we usually lose the kids as Catholics too in most cases. I’m really glad to see Pope Francis willing to at least look at the situation and I am hopeful and pray that he can find a way to streamline things!

Very true. However what I have found with so many comments are replies here, they have a real attitude about them. “That’s what the Church says so that is the end of it.” I just don’t think everything is so black and white even in the eyes of God. We are imperfect. Our decisions are imperfect. We are sinners. In spite of this, when it comes to marriage, we are supposed to live with these imperfect decisions forever, even when one spouse has all the intention of keeping the vows when the other spouse did not.

Jesus paid for our sins by suffering on the cross. But he suffered for a very short time in comparison to the amount of time an innocent spouse has to suffer after a civil divorce. Years to wait for an annulment is just additional punishment. Not to mention, remarriage allows the children to have a real father, for the spouse to possibly get health insurance and have a safe home for the children. I think Pope Francis is starting to recognize the reasons Catholic women in particular need to remarry.

I agree when you push people aside they and their children end up leaving the Church. My sister was indeed in this very situation after her divorce. While she has not remarried and never sought an annulment, she left the Church and never raised her children Catholic. Really sad.

When people go through divorce, they feel very abandoned by the Church and some of the ardent and strict Catholics who believe marriage should be forever. Sure I believe marriage is forever, that does not mean both spouses feel the same way. When one spouse cheats, does not repent, tells his wife he does not love her, continues to cheat, never seeks therapy, then the innocent spouse pays for those sins so to speak. Go we really have to go through years of agony in these situations? Clearly a valid marriage never good place in mind of the cheating spouse.

 

[runningdude]

This is the whole issue with the Bible and Christianity as a whole. No one can agree on the interpretation. We argue over the meaning of Greek words when Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Did the author even do a correct translation from Aramaic to Greek?

The statement that “no one can agree” is untrue. The Church offers an authentic interpretation on most important issues. That certain individuals choose to dispute the authentic interpretation does not affect the validity of the teaching.

The authors spoke fluent Greek. The authors were Apostles of Christ, and had the authority to authentically represent his teachings in any language (last week was Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, allowing them to preach in any tongue!)

People will use the Old Testament to back up something in the New Testament (Jesus said he was not here to destroy the old law), but when that does not work as in the case of divorce which was permitted under Mosiac Law, then they use the argument that Jesus created a new covenant.

The people of the Old Testament were not baptized. Divorce was a possibility. Two baptized Christians who marry are bonded until death. Even today, the Pope may divorce an unbaptized man or women under certain conditions (Pauline or Petrine Privilege).

So people will say that only the Catholic Church can make the correct interpretation of the Bible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit! Therefore some how we must accept that the Holy Spirit only guides the Catholic Church that no one else reading and interpreting the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, this is a tenant of faith. Individuals are fallible, and can too easily substitute their vain opinion for an authentic interpretation. Only the Catholic Church is fully and infallibly protected from such error by the Holy Spirit.

This stuff really drives me nuts.

That is unfortunate, but this is the Church God gave us.

I believe that Jesus in His infinite wisdom did not expect one spouse to continue to suffer for the actions of the other spouse. If one spouse (guilty spouse) committed acts that broke the bond of marriage, there never was a marriage since said spouse was predisposed to that action and therefore never committed to the marriage from the on-set. Jesus knew this and made said exception.

There is nothing factually wrong with this statement. The church teaches this to be an annulment. Infidelity alone does not prove an invalid marriage, but is strong evidence of a lack of commitment from the onset.

That you dispute the Church’s exclusive authority to interpret scripture and tradition is disturbing, but you have arrived at an orthodox interpretation of Matthew 19:9 nonetheless.

 

[runningdude]

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.

I do not understand what you mean. All form of immoral sex present in a marriage attempt could be grounds for an annulment.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I do not understand what you mean. All form of immoral sex present in a marriage attempt could be grounds for an annulment.

Not as I understand it. I thought an annulment implied a lack of understanding, proper intention or consent by one of the parties at the time of the wedding. But there are cases of seriously immoral sexual behavior that occur later in marriages, even if the spouse fully intended to keep his/her promise at the wedding.

 

[runningdude]

Not as I understand it. I thought an annulment implied a lack of understanding, proper intention or consent by one of the parties at the time of the wedding. But there are cases of seriously immoral sexual behavior that occur later in marriages, even if the spouse fully intended to keep his/her promise at the wedding.

Yes, your understanding is correct.

I was responding specifically to the several examples you provided, such as sodomy (I assume homosexual), and incest. Both of these would result in an invalid marriage.

An invalid marriage itself, especially if entered into in bad faith, would technically be fornication. The union itself could be an example of pornea, which is really what I assume Christ was describing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, your understanding is correct.

I was responding specifically to the several examples you provided, such as sodomy (I assume homosexual), and incest. Both of these would result in an invalid marriage.

An invalid marriage itself, especially if entered into in bad faith, would technically be fornication. The union itself could be an example of pornea, which is really what I assume Christ was describing.

I’m very puzzled. I was talking about a man and a woman getting married validly, and then, say, the man having sodomitical/incestuous adultery with someone 10 years later. (And I don’t see why it matters if it was with a man or a woman. The act is the same.) In such a case, the Church would teach that an annulment is not appropriate. But the Matthew 19 passage seems to suggest that a divorce would be permissible.

 

[runningdude]

I’m very puzzled. I was talking about a man and a woman getting married validly, and then, say, the man having sodomitical/incestuous adultery with someone 10 years later. (And I don’t see why it matters if it was with a man or a woman. The act is the same.) In such a case, the Church would teach that an annulment is not appropriate. But the Matthew 19 passage seems to suggest that a divorce would be permissible.

I am referring to the sexual union of the marriage itself. A homosexual union, or an incestuous union, or a polyamorous union could never be a valid marriage. I believe Christ was referring to divorce being permitted when the union itself was immoral. He is simply clarifying that only valid marriages are insoluble.

Under the hypothetical, the union you described likely could not be annulled; however it would require an investigation following the collapse of the marriage to know for sure.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am referring to the sexual union of the marriage itself. A homosexual union, or an incestuous union, or a polyamorous union could never be a valid marriage. I believe Christ was referring to divorce being permitted when the union itself was immoral. He is simply clarifying that only valid marriages are insoluble.

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?

But if that’s what Jesus was talking about at Matt. 19, you would have expected him to use a word that means “unlawful”. He didn’t use a word that means unlawful. He used a word that means “grossly immoral sexual conduct”. I haven’t seen any argument that explains why he used that word, if he meant what you’re saying he meant.

 

[bobcrawford]

Yes, your understanding is correct.

I was responding specifically to the several examples you provided, such as sodomy (I assume homosexual), and incest. Both of these would result in an invalid marriage.

An invalid marriage itself, especially if entered into in bad faith, would technically be fornication. The union itself could be an example of pornea, which is really what I assume Christ was describing.

Since Christ spoke in Aramaic and not Greek, pornea being the word that Matthew wrote, not necessarily the word that Christ intended.

Cannot believe Jesus Christ would expect a spouse to live in a marriage where a covenant was broken by one of the spouses, with no repentance and continuing of the behavior.

Second, it is my belief that any spouse who commits adultery, had that intention prior to the marriage and therefore all marriages that have a spouse committing adultery is a non-valid marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Second, it is my belief that any spouse who commits adultery, had that intention prior to the marriage and therefore all marriages that have a spouse committing adultery is a non-valid marriage.

This view makes no sense to me. Surely people are capable of changing for the worse.

 

[bobcrawford]

This view makes no sense to me. Surely people are capable of changing for the worse.

Makes perfect sense to me. If people are predisposed to evil activities, then yes, they can change for the worse. Or, if a mental or physical illness befalls them. Outside of that, to become evil, you have to be predisposed to it. Hence why I believe a cheater/adulterer had the mindset for the activities before marriage, and hence and invalid marriage. Or, as previously noted, a mental condition.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Makes perfect sense to me. If people are predisposed to evil activities, then yes, they can change for the worse. Or, if a mental or physical illness befalls them. Outside of that, to become evil, you have to be predisposed to it. Hence why I believe a cheater/adulterer had the mindset for the activities before marriage, and hence and invalid marriage. Or, as previously noted, a mental condition.

We’re all predisposed to evil activities. That is Catholic doctrine.

 

[runningdude]

Since Christ spoke in Aramaic and not Greek, pornea being the word that Matthew wrote, not necessarily the word that Christ intended.

That may be the case. We must then look to Matthew’s audience to figure out what he was trying to express.

Second, it is my belief that any spouse who commits adultery, had that intention prior to the marriage and therefore all marriages that have a spouse committing adultery is a non-valid marriage.

I do not disagree in most instances. Pope Francis says that as many as 50% of marriages may be eligible for annulment.

Cannot believe Jesus Christ would expect a spouse to live in a marriage where a covenant was broken by one of the spouses, with no repentance and continuing of the behavior.

I might argue, though, that adultery is a sin specifically because of its impact on the innocent spouse, who is then “trapped” with a cheater.

 

[runningdude]

We’re all predisposed to evil activities. That is Catholic doctrine.

Not quite. That is a more Protestant view; certain Protestants believe that humans are wholly “predisposed” to evil. Catholic doctrine is more nuanced, that we are innate good, but damaged by sin, and retain some stain of evil even after baptism.

Committing sin is not inevitable, which is precisely what makes sin so awful!

 

[runningdude]

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

[9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. …

[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=19&l=9#x

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not quite. That is a more Protestant view; certain Protestants believe that humans are wholly “predisposed” to evil. Catholic doctrine is more nuanced, that we are innate good, but damaged by sin, and retain some stain of evil even after baptism.

Committing sin is not inevitable, which is precisely what makes sin so awful!

We all have concupiscence, which is a disposition to seek good in the wrong ways, or to seek false goods – in other words, we all have a disposition to evil. We are also naturally good. There’s no contradiction there.