SPLIT: Meaning of divorce in Matthew's Gospel

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m curious: Is it the position of the Church that God will NEVER separate that which He hath joined?

Well, in divorce law when God joined it – we generally don’t split heirs, BUT we also know God sometimes chooses the day a person dies; so at their death spouses are separated; and that is often God’s doing. Short answer “YES”.

Long answer:
In heaven we have the wedding feast of the lamb (non-sexual) and that is the final “Joining” which we are assured will NEVER be separated; But those who don’t inherit the kingdom, eg: the devil and his ilk – are by definition for ever separated from those who do inherit. (I suppose that if both spouses go to hell, they could be still “joined” … hmmm …).

So, we can “hope” that God will never separate lovers in the end, but there is always the possibility that one spouse goes to hell, the other does not. In any event, it’s kind of moot – for there is no more sex in heaven; we have better things to do.

I have no idea about hell… (But Billy Joel’s speculation will eventually be seen… :idea: Curious thought … Will his Ex be laughing with him in his mind? ).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Let’s be precise he was talking to the unmarried and widows and not to virgins and widows, though some and even many of the unmarried may have been virgins but we can’t assume that they must have** all **been virgins… The church did after all attract sinners! I would agree that he was not idealising re-marriage. The ideal is chastity but he is making allowances for people’s weaknesses. There is also a difference between permanent chastity and temporary chastity. It is for example good to practice restraint in what one eats but one would not argue from that that complete abstinence is a good thing. The consequences in this case is death.

Chastity is not the same as being Celebate; A chaste wife can have fun in bed, to be precise, but only with her husband.

For those who have strong sexual urges the consequences of permanent repression whilst not as severe as those for complete absence of food leads to perversions.

perversions of what? your sexual urges, by your own admission, have been terminated. May I ask, are you speaking from personal experience? if so, what kind of non-sexual perversion happened?

I think your view of athletes is rather idealistic considering the widespread abuse of performance enhancing drugs. However, temporary abstinence of sex has long been encouraged in sport a few days before an event for reasons of conserving energy. And , of course there has to be discipline.Permanent chastity, however, has never been encouraged. Judging by the sexual exploits of some top professional footballers in the UK at least, I am drawn to the conclusion that they have larger sexual appetites than normal.

Sexuality is abused in the Olympics to achieve blood doping; Russian athlete women are often impregnated days before the actual competition; and then have a mandatory abortion; as abortion isn’t illegal – they can’t ban the athlete for achieving blood doping in this legal but horrid manner goes against your thoughts; I wish you were right, but sadly I don’t think it’s true among women.

As to it being mental rather than physical you can always read what those who have sex addictions/obsessions say. How often they use the mental will to suppress the drive and how time after time they fail despite periods of abstinence. Only after realising that the use of their own mental power is not enough do they then turn to others for help. One of the interesting findings I have discovered from my discussions on religious forums is how often evangelical converts have been former addicts of all types. They no longer believe in self power but look for help from without. They believe that God gives them the grace. Personally, I believe the support comes from finding a supportive community.

Well, I believe you’ll find out when you die (or perhaps right before you die).
Cheers!

 

[jcrichton]

I certainly agree that selflessness takes one’s mind off oneself and the misery of pre-occupation. No belief in God is required for that.

…the problem with that premise is that morality changes according to the social tenet of the moment and in the absence of God personal preference is the determining factor: ie: those who are concerned with over population will cite that in the US 10,000 children are born in “x” number of hours and while that is true the fact remains that 60,000 dogs and cats are born in that same time frame… the tenet of the day promotes selflessness in the form of adopting and caring for those poor dogs and cats; conversey, human children are seen as a problem to be eradicated through abortion and other preemptive means.

As to God’s commandments being permanent , I would say au contraire that what are purported to be God’s commands seem to evolve over time. In the Old Testament God values the Israelite over the non Israelite. For example it was OK to keep non Israelites as slaves but not Israelites.Leviticus 25:44-46 And also you could beat a slave hard so long as he did not die Exodus 21:20-2. By the New Testament the Jew and the Hebrew are seen as equal in the eye of God even though slavery is still condoned, one is expected to treat them better than the example given in Exodus 21:20-2. In time , however, even the Popes are issuing bulls condemning slavery.

So just in this example we can see that God’s commands are not permanent but evolving. In this case that slavery is acceptable to not acceptable; and from being able to beat a slave to treating them well

…it’s been a while since I’ve read through the Pentateuch so I may not be quite on the money… I seem to recall the admonishion that Israelites must treat their slaves/servants as their own children… and while the Command that allowed the beating of the slave seems wrong to you, you are ignoring the fact that others did beat their slaves to death and even murdered them with civil impunity… and no God’s Commandments have not changed; what has changed is the economy in which we exist; the Old Testament was based on a temporal economy (termporal values: eye for an eye); the New Testament ushers in an economy based on spiritual values–the demands are greater as we are called to spiritual perfection ("if you Love me Obey my Commandments)…

…through the Church, God has introduced the changes that exist in the world where slavery is seen as evil and human rights have been introduced–dispite revisionists, wherever the Church flourished society also flourished along with respect for life and all the rights and obligations that that entitles; conversely, where the Church has been eradicated, exiled or kept from existing the greatest exploitation of both humanity and nature takes place (just check with recent history–USSR, Mexico, Spain, France, England, and nations such as China).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s be precise he was talking to the unmarried and widows and not to virgins and widows, though some and even many of the unmarried may have been virgins but we can’t assume that they must have** all **been virgins… The church did after all attract sinners! I would agree that he was not idealising re-marriage. The ideal is chastity but he is making allowances for people’s weaknesses. There is also a difference between permanent chastity and temporary chastity. It is for example good to practice restraint in what one eats but one would not argue from that that complete abstinence is a good thing. The consequences in this case is death. For those who have strong sexual urges the consequences of permanent repression whilst not as severe as those for complete absence of food leads to perversions.

You are correct I have been equating the unmarried to virgins (a personal prejudice); as for the urges, I must maintain that it is mental since our behavior changes according to what is perceived as the norm, peer pressure, and personal experiences; while I am not suggesting that we abstain from food, I’ve known people who have gone to both extremes with serious consequences–both were driven by mental stress and both had to resolve psychological issues before the healing took.

I think your view of athletes is rather idealistic considering the widespread abuse of performance enhancing drugs. However, temporary abstinence of sex has long been encouraged in sport a few days before an event for reasons of conserving energy. And , of course there has to be discipline.Permanent chastity, however, has never been encouraged. Judging by the sexual exploits of some top professional footballers in the UK at least, I am drawn to the conclusion that they have larger sexual appetites than normal.

I did not say “professional athletes,” but this offers an excellent example where it is mind over matter… if we do in-depth research, I suspect, we will find that there has always been those who would want to win at all costs… the notable change would come as society placed greater importance on the status of the athlete/celebrity than on the morality/immorality of their substance abuse (drug, sex or whatever compulsion); as hollowood and its satelites have changed the culture more and more the immoral has become the norm… and as the new tenets have eroded the moral fiber of society a greater number of people have opted to “take it to the edge.”

As to it being mental rather than physical you can always read what those who have sex addictions/obsessions say. How often they use the mental will to suppress the drive and how time after time they fail despite periods of abstinence. Only after realising that the use of their own mental power is not enough do they then turn to others for help. One of the interesting findings I have discovered from my discussions on religious forums is how often evangelical converts have been former addicts of all types. They no longer believe in self power but look for help from without. They believe that God gives them the grace. Personally, I believe the support comes from finding a supportive community.

I will not argue that fighting an addiction is a huge battle… but if we were to turn back the clock… what lead to that compulsion, was it not a mind set that promoted liberal use/consumption of the addictive element? For years hollowood has been shaping the mind of the masses, creating man in its image and likeness and consciously hearding the masses to its corrals… granted, at times it is so very subtle that people do not even sense it when they are being branded… and at times the loss of control is so complete that the those who discover that they are branded actually believe that they have been enhanced/elevated… no, the drive is not greater on athletes/celebrities… what makes them different from the common man/woman is the fact that their appetatite has been augmented by preferred treatment and lack of consequences!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I suspect there is something in us that makes us forget our mortality. In July of this year I was told I had metastatic prostate cancer cancer i.e had spread to the bones. They could only delay the inevitable through hormone treatment, in my case the orchiectomy, by on average two years though some lived up to five years and more rarely ten. When I told people this news many said how sorry they were for me. But when you think of it we should all be sorry for each other as we are all going to die. Some of those commiserating with me may indeed die earlier than me. The only difference was that an expert had given me a timeline. People like to give themselves long lifelines, myself included. There is no rational reason to do that. Just because statistics say we can live 70 plus years does not mean that will be our life span.

Another example of this distancing ourselves from our own mortality is the shock we feel when we hear someone is near death or has just died. Why should it be a shock? Millions die every year. What is there to be shocked about. It is a very common event. But yet we are shocked. Anyway, I do not fault people for this, it is just something I have noticed. Perhaps for some to dwell on death may lead them to being depressed.

I cuncur… I knew at least one person that “felt sorry” for two others whom he though were destined for a prompt death… he’s been dead over ten years now and the two people he felt sorry for are still alive (thanks to God); I think too that we have been trained to think of “eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow you will die.” I feel that about my almost dead computer… I try to anwer as many of these posts as I can because I do not know when it will shut down permanently!

I think that we also have this misconception (yeah hollowood again) that we will know when we’ll be facing death (as in those old movies) so we can put off any convertion or good-will acts till those final hours/minutes… we forget about the uncertainties of life!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fisherman_carl]

The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce because Jesus condemned divorce and the Church does not have the authority to change His teaching. Read Mt 19:3-12.

Since creation, God made marriage to be permanent, exclusive, and fruitful (Gen 1:28; 2:24; Mt 19:5). However, because of man’s rebellion against God marriage has suffered many distortions that hide its true beauty. Moses permitted divorce and remarriage as a concession to the sinfulness of Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 24:1-4). Even so, it was clear that divorce falls short of God’s will and plan for married couples (cf. Mal 2:16).

So does Jesus affirm divorce in Deut 24:1-4 in the New Covenant as it was in the old? The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage. The bond that unites a couple in the sacrament of matrimony is created by God (Mt 19:6) and can be dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses (cf. Rom 7:1-3). For men or women to remarry while their spouse is living is to commit adultery (Mt 19:9, Rom 7:3).

All Christians acknowledge that Jesus was against divorce. The differences on divorce results from the interpretation of the ‘exception clause’ that Jesus seems to make in Mt 19:9 when he says, “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.”

To some Christians Jesus seems to be saying that divorce is permitted in cases like marital unfaithfulness of the partner. However, this interpretation does not interpret the context of that passage in light of Mt 19:10 where the apostles say it is better then, in response to what Jesus said, not to marry. This shows the severity of Jesus’ statement that the disciple would prefer celibacy to being married. If the disciples were still allowed to divorce then they would not have made that statement.

Still, the question remains: What did Jesus mean when he said “except for unchastity” in Mt 5:32 and 19:9? Over the centuries, Catholic exegesis has put forward three main interpretations.

1. Patristic View - Several Church Fathers suggest Jesus allowed for divorce in cases of serious sexual sin such as adultery, but he never permitted remarriage after divorce. This squares with St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7:10-11.
2. Levitical Law View - This position interprets “unchastity” in Mt 19:9 as invalid marriages where the spouses are too closely related. This becomes equivalent to an annulment. A valid marriage never occurred. The view is supported by Acts 15:20,29 where the apostles charge Gentile Christians to abstain from blood and unchastity. The OT background for this decision in Lev 18:6-18 suggests that unchastity refers to prohibited marriages between closely related kinsfolk. Also 1 Cor 5:1-2 refers to an illicit union of a man and his father’s wife.
3. “No Comment” View - Jesus sets aside Jewish debates over the grounds for divorce in the OT (Deut 24). Because Jesus is revoking the OT concession on divorce, he brackets the whole issue and sets it off to the side as irrelevant. Thus “except for unchastity” means “regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”. Jesus refuses even to comment on Deut 24:1. To do so would blunt the force of his own teaching, since he is not clarifying or reaffirming Moses permission, he is abolishing it.

Hermas: “What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

St. Jerome: “Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives” (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

 

[Nimeniton]

Chastity is not the same as being Celebate; A chaste wife can have fun in bed, to be precise, but only with her husband.

www.askoxford.com defines the meaning of chastity as the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all], sexual intercourse:vows of chastity
So it is perfectly legitimate to use the word in the sense I did. Celibacy has a similar meaning but usually emphasises the aspect of refraining from marriage.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

www.askoxford.com defines the meaning of chastity as the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all], sexual intercourse:vows of chastity
So it is perfectly legitimate to use the word in the sense I did. Celibacy has a similar meaning but usually emphasises the aspect of refraining from marriage.

Nimeniton, I didn’t say it wasn’t accurate; I said to be “Precise” as YOU DID. Precise means repeatable it does not mean accurate. Since the definition may or NOT mean “all” sexual – it is illigitimate to use that as the “precise” (repeatable) meaning of the word.

It clearly will not mean that in some cases, and historically has not meant so. Therefore it isn’t a “precise” definition. BUT all variations of the definition include the “precise” meaning of not being “illegitimate”; Check multiple dictionaries too … one dictionary to another might not be repeatable either… (SHEESH!)

English & Science 101. Use of big words does not guarantee you’re right.
Peace (RIP).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce because Jesus condemned divorce and the Church does not have the authority to change His teaching. Read Mt 19:3-12.

Carl, check your opening wording – it’s confusing; See the Canon Law I cited by the Catholic church which allows Divorce under certain circumstances – to jchricton a few posts back.

The church does not “allow” divorce “when God journeyed” the spouses together; but that has nothing to do with the case where the marriage was not joined by God since it was in violation of God’s law in the first place… I like the rest of your post.

Since creation, God made marriage to be permanent, exclusive, and fruitful (Gen 1:28; 2:24; Mt 19:5). However, because of man’s rebellion against God marriage has suffered many distortions that hide its true beauty. Moses permitted divorce and remarriage as a concession to the sinfulness of Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 24:1-4). Even so, it was clear that divorce falls short of God’s will and plan for married couples (cf. Mal 2:16).

So does Jesus affirm divorce in Deut 24:1-4 in the New Covenant as it was in the old? The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage.

Except where impediments to marriage are present; or one spouse DIES after a divorce which frees the divorcee for re-marriage; St. Thomas even acknowledges an alternate possibility to the desperate – there is murder and remarriage, but no divorce and remarriage. (Thank God for confession?!) I’m only bringing this up, because when I started having trouble with my wife – Fr. Luan Tran of Oregon decided to inform me of this useful information…

The bond that unites a couple in the sacrament of matrimony is created by God (Mt 19:6) and can be dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses (cf. Rom 7:1-3). For men or women to remarry while their spouse is living is to commit adultery (Mt 19:9, Rom 7:3).

All Christians acknowledge that Jesus was against divorce. The differences on divorce results from the interpretation of the ‘exception clause’ that Jesus seems to make in Mt 19:9 when he says, “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.”

To some Christians Jesus seems to be saying that divorce is permitted in cases like marital unfaithfulness of the partner. However, this interpretation does not interpret the context of that passage in light of Mt 19:10 where the apostles say it is better then, in response to what Jesus said, not to marry. This shows the severity of Jesus’ statement that the disciple would prefer celibacy to being married. If the disciples were still allowed to divorce then they would not have made that statement.

Right, but since priests today mention murder and remarriage; I agree it would have been FAR better for most of them not to marry. Confession just seems, well, wrong for that…

Still, the question remains: What did Jesus mean when he said “except for unchastity” in Mt 5:32 and 19:9? Over the centuries, Catholic exegesis has put forward three main interpretations.

1. Patristic View - Several Church Fathers suggest Jesus allowed for divorce in cases of serious sexual sin such as adultery, but he never permitted remarriage after divorce. This squares with St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7:10-11.

1. Levitical Law View - This position interprets “unchastity” in Mt 19:9 as invalid marriages where the spouses are too closely related. This becomes equivalent to an annulment. A valid marriage never occurred. The view is supported by Acts 15:20,29 where the apostles charge Gentile Christians to abstain from blood and unchastity. The OT background for this decision in Lev 18:6-18 suggests that unchastity refers to prohibited marriages between closely related kinsfolk. Also 1 Cor 5:1-2 refers to an illicit union of a man and his father’s wife.

1. “No Comment” View - Jesus sets aside Jewish debates over the grounds for divorce in the OT (Deut 24). Because Jesus is revoking the OT concession on divorce, he brackets the whole issue and sets it off to the side as irrelevant. Thus “except for unchastity” means “regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”. Jesus refuses even to comment on Deut 24:1. To do so would blunt the force of his own teaching, since he is not clarifying or reaffirming Moses permission, he is abolishing it.

Hermas: “What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

St. Jerome: “Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives” (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

But if the husband kill the one HIS woman commits adultery with, the USA courts are less likely to condemn him for any length of time (eg: as they would if he killed her in a fit of rage); Is this anti-Thomism? If so, I wonder, is it better for the man who takes another’s wife in adultery to kill her and claim he was afraid for his life from the first husband – (in the USA) and thus all men be allowed to remarry later – or not?

(eg: Is Thomistic sex still good on death row…?)

 

[someguy14]

New Way To Be Human

 

[Nimeniton]

:

perversions of what? your sexual urges, by your own admission, have been terminated. May I ask, are you speaking from personal experience? if so, what kind of non-sexual perversion happened?

Seeing as I have admitted to having a low libido, it logically follows that I do not have strong sexual urges to repress. Therefore, no perversion can follow in that respect. But of course I practiced chastity when I still had a libido as a Buddhist and observed others do so as well. So, I do have some personal experience both in regard to observing myself and others. With regard to your question as to non -sexual perversions that result from repressing sexual energy, these are a couple of studies you can read for yourself. Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic Achievement. by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. October 2005Body Pleasure and the origins of Violence,
By James W. Prescott.From “The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists”, November 1975, pp. 10-20 and psychologist J.M. Prescott, in a cross-cultural investigation published in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (1975) . Some of the non sexual perversions that are mentioned in this area are anger, violence, obsessions and various types of neuroses. I lived in a Buddhist community with someone who had been celibate for many years. He sublimated his urges by going to classical music concerts. However, once on a three month retreat isolated from such entertainment his usual way of sublimating it failed. He became quite a glutton and put on a huge amount of weight. This weight started to disappear on his return to ‘civilisation’ and his beloved music.

 

[Nimeniton]

:

Well, I believe you’ll find out when you die (or perhaps right before you die).
Cheers!

Or perhaps not, who knows? Well as you have admitted,it is a belief. People believe all sorts of things.

 

[Nimeniton]

:

Sexuality is abused in the Olympics to achieve blood doping; Russian athlete women are often impregnated days before the actual competition; and then have a mandatory abortion; as abortion isn’t illegal – they can’t ban the athlete for achieving blood doping in this legal but horrid manner goes against your thoughts; I wish you were right, but sadly I don’t think it’s true among women.

!

You wish I was right about what exactly?

 

[Nimeniton]

…the problem with that premise is that morality changes according to the social tenet of the moment and in the absence of God personal preference is the determining factor: ie: those who are concerned with over population will cite that in the US 10,000 children are born in “x” number of hours and while that is true the fact remains that 60,000 dogs and cats are born in that same time frame… the tenet of the day promotes selflessness in the form of adopting and caring for those poor dogs and cats; conversey, human children are seen as a problem to be eradicated through abortion and other preemptive means.

Angel

You do tend to think in all or nothing scenarios. Just because societies encourage or permit unethical actions in some areas does not mean they do not encourage them in others. Furthermore some people such as Buddhists refuse to commit human abortions as well as refraining from killing animals especially for food. Now Catholics do not discourage the killing of animals for food but they do encourage people not to lie and steal. Does this mean they do not promote selflessness in any area of life? Of course not. Admittedly it is self centered to disregard the suffering of an animal for the pleasure of eating such especially if one can afford to nourish oneself otherwise but does that mean that person never tries to be selfless in other areas? I am sure that many meat eating Catholics practice selflessness. They just draw the line at animal suffering where their taste buds are concerned. Likewise some people draw the line at where killing is permissible to include human fetuses. You and I would not agree with them though.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1. “No Comment” View - Jesus sets aside Jewish debates over the grounds for divorce in the OT (Deut 24). Because Jesus is revoking the OT concession on divorce, he brackets the whole issue and sets it off to the side as irrelevant. Thus “except for unchastity” means “regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”. Jesus refuses even to comment on Deut 24:1. To do so would blunt the force of his own teaching, since he is not clarifying or reaffirming Moses permission, he is abolishing it.

But, as I was pointing out earlier – He is being asked the question maliciously in the territory of Herodias and Herod; (Eg: incest and or adultery; cf. John the Baptist)
The particular exception clause only occurs in this particular geographic place, with those as contemporaries; In other places in Matthew, and the other Gospels the exception is not mentioned.

I find it difficult to accept that this is mere coincidence;
Deute 24:1 εαν δε τις λαβη γυναικα και συνοικηση αυτη και εσται εαν μη ευρη χαριν εναντιον αυτου οτι ευρεν εν αυτη ασχημον πραγμα και γραψει αυτη βιβλιον αποστασιου και δωσει εις τας χειρας αυτης και εξαποστελει αυτην εκ της οικιας αυτου
Deute 24:1 If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce (biblon apostacy), and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The specific terms in the Greek for divorce is “book(let) of apostacy”; which being the term for divorce is also the term for disparity of cult. The particular word for “uncleanness” carries the idea of “deed” (Pragma) and the other part shows up in Deute 25:3; Ezekiel 23:29; and carries the sense of confusion/shame/disgrace.

So Deute says,
if a man take a wife, and she find not grace (a reciprocal relationship) in his eyes which find in her shameful deed(s), and [a man] write to her [a] booklet of apostacy and give-it into the hand of-her and send her out of his house.

So that it is for the “action” of the wife that divorce is permitted;

Ezeki 23:29 And they shall deal with thee in hatred, and they shall take away all thy labours, and shall let thee go naked, and full of disgrace, and the disgrace of thy fornication (pornea) shall be discovered, thy wickedness, and thy fornications.
Ezeki 23:30 They have done these things to thee, because thou hast played the harlot with the nations among which thou wast defiled with their idols.
…

Which is identical to that used in Matthew. The fornication is something which is “unveiled”; and the reference to naked also refers to sexual sin in Jewish idiom; so much so – that I think Moses clearly is indicating some kind of Sexual sin that the husband can’t tolerate; not mere lack of beauty or some such but shameful behavior.

Given that, I don’t think it makes much sense that Jesus would be setting aside moses’ grounds for “divorce”; any truly “shameful practice” of the wife would necessitate a man getting rid of her. Moses allowed you divorce because of your hardness of heart then, would seem to be applicable to the wife’s unwillingness to change idolatrous/adulterous practices as well as an unforgiving husband.

The interpretation of the Scribes in Jesus’ day may not coincide with that which Moses actually proposed; But the issue is, if Moses actually meant an idolatrous or disparity of cult wife (apostate); then it isn’t Moses’ law which needs set aside – but the interpretation of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Otherwise, setting aside – would seem to sanction a man staying married to a woman who refused normal sexual relations without perversion of some kind.

The “setting aside” interpretation appears risky apologetically speaking; when comparing to the teaching of the Catholic Church and her practice throughout the centuries. It may rest on a misinterpretation of Moses and Jesus; (I’m not certain it is, but the potential is visible in a cursory reading of the Greek.)

One has to show that Moses’ grounds for divorce aren’t in fact those of a null Jewish marriage (disparity of cult). It might be possible that the woman repent in the future, and in marrying another they have the same religious understanding of sexuality; but refuse it to her first husband for unknown reasons; (Some wives taken by Moses’ Jewish peers were captives from other religions, so refusal to be a slave wife or contraceptive practice also seems possible…)

Without being certain of Moses reasoning for divorce being erroneous, it is difficult to say why Jesus would refuse to talk about it. “Hardness of Heart” refers to disobeying of God’s law, therefore – divorce is given for disobeying God’s law is another way to understand Jesus’ statement.

What do you think?

 

[apfrita]

What is the Catholic position on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Here there is an exemption “porneia” as grounds for divorce.

The meaning of porneia in the Bible varies:

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
   blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

**The online Jerusalem bible **interprets the word and verse as follows:except for the case of an illicit marriage Matthew 5:32 and the even looser translation I am not speaking of an illicit marriage Matthew 19:9

In my youth the translation from Knox’s translation of the vulgate was setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness matthew 5:32 and not for any unfaithfulness of hers Matthew 19:9.

This gives a very different interpretation of the word porneia and certainly does not give the impression of an illicit marriage.

Neither does the Douay-Rheims bible which states excepting for the cause of fornication Matthew 5:32 and except it be for fornication Matthew 19:9. Interestingly there is a note for Matthew19:9 which says [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/chapter/47019.htm. There are two interesting points here. He interprets** porneia** to mean adultery even though Matthew uses quite an explicit word for adultery in the same sentence moichaō. What is also interesting is his conclusion that the man can divorce under those circumstances yet not marry again. However, the verse is explicit in that the exemption is the only reason he can marry again.

The exemption seems to be very problematic to interpret. What is the current thinking as to its meaning?

The verse Mt 19:9, taken from the New American Bible (which is a Catholic version) is given below for quick reference:

9
**I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries commits adultery." **

The marriage being un-lawful just means that which is not accepted by the Law. My opinion is that Jesus being a Jew was not referring to the Civil law of that time which was the Roman Law. He must be referring to the Jewish Law. A marriage would not be lawful then only if it does not have a marriage certificate from a valid Jewish authority.

For us Catholics it would mean that the marriage would be un-lawful if it does not have a certificate of marriage from the church. So even if it may be a marriage under civil law of the land, it will be an un-lawful marriage if it is not a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church. So if the marriage is un-lawful in this sense then divorce is not a problem according to the above verse. If it is a lawful marriage in this sense, then divorce AND re-marriage together constitutes adultery, not divorce alone. At least that’s what the verse seems to say. So the verse says that if a lawfully married person divorces his wife (for valid reasons) and remains un-married then he does not commit adultery. This is to prevent lawfully married people from divorcing their spouses just because they want to get into other relationship. But the divorce may be possible for valid reasons if the divorced person does not consider re-marriage.

Mt 5:32 from the NAB is given below for quick reference:
32
**But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. **

Here the context is different; here it says that if the marriage is lawful and a person divorces his wife then he causes her to commit adultery. The reason here is that in Jewish background, for a woman to remain un-married is not an option at all (single woman concept did not exist then). In such a case if a man divorces his wife even though the marriage is lawful then he forces her to re-marry. So she has to re-marry though as far as she is concerned the earlier marriage was lawful, hence she has been caused to commit adultery by her previous husband by forcing her into another marriage. So the husband is in sin, since he has caused his wife to enter into another marriage when his marriage with her was lawful. A woman who is divorced is lawfully divorced only if the earlier marriage is unlawful. If that is the case she was in a wrong relationship earlier itself. Then if a man marries her after her divorce, obviously he commits adultery.

I don’t know whether I have made my points clear. It is such a difficult topic. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I have just interpreted the verse based on what it gramatically wants to say, not trying to read too much or too little from it.

 

[MissRose73]

The laws of Moses regarding divorce favor men over women regarding initiating of proceedings which set precedence for other religions to do similar things.

In today’s modern world, people tend to divorce over the smallest things. I would say things like adultery, desertion, domestic violence, etc would be grounds for divorce then seeking an annulment. Not all things can be fixed by counseling and/or rehabilitation.

Issues with communication, family, and money are things that people should be able to compromise on and seek help with, and should have discussed even before the wedding day of how they should be handled.

 

[Nimeniton]

.

…it’s been a while since I’ve read through the Pentateuch so I may not be quite on the money… I seem to recall the admonishion that Israelites must treat their slaves/servants as their own children… and while the Command that allowed the beating of the slave seems wrong to you, you are ignoring the fact that others did beat their slaves to death and even murdered them with civil impunity… and no God’s Commandments have not changed; what has changed is the economy in which we exist; the Old Testament was based on a temporal economy (termporal values: eye for an eye); the New Testament ushers in an economy based on spiritual values–the demands are greater as we are called to spiritual perfection ("if you Love me Obey my Commandments)…

.

Well, I suggest you read your own scriptures. It is fairly obvious that laws and rules come in to change things that actually happen. So if there is a law saying “Don’t beat your slave to death” then it is in response to a slave being beaten to death. If the Bible claims God says it is OK to beat a slave unconscious but not to death and a Pope says God says slavery is wrong then there has been a change in commandments. If the Chinese government starts up private enterprises and claims it is still communist and no change has taken place and we believe it. How sad are we. It is like the sheep in George Orwell’s Animal Farm who believe Squealer when he says there has been no change in the commandments. What the sheep thought they remembered as “No animal shall sleep in a bed” was actually " No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property". Exodus 21:20

“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (in servitutem redigere) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.” Pope Gregory, In Supremo.

That seems quite a change in the commandments that some men claim come from God.

 

[Nimeniton]

…through the Church, God has introduced the changes that exist in the world where slavery is seen as evil and human rights have been introduced

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes but which changes. The change of the commandment that Israelites could no longer enslave their own or the the Popes who said all slavery was wrong?

 

[jcrichton]

Carl, check your opening wording – it’s confusing; See the Canon Law I cited by the Catholic church which allows Divorce under certain circumstances – to jchricton a few posts back.

The church does not “allow” divorce “when God journeyed” the spouses together; but that has nothing to do with the case where the marriage was not joined by God since it was in violation of God’s law in the first place… I like the rest of your post.


Except where impediments to marriage are present; or one spouse DIES after a divorce which frees the divorcee for re-marriage; St. Thomas even acknowledges an alternate possibility to the desperate – there is murder and remarriage, but no divorce and remarriage. (Thank God for confession?!) I’m only bringing this up, because when I started having trouble with my wife – Fr. Luan Tran of Oregon decided to inform me of this useful information…

Right, but since priests today mention murder and remarriage; I agree it would have been FAR better for most of them not to marry. Confession just seems, well, wrong for that…

But if the husband kill the one HIS woman commits adultery with, the USA courts are less likely to condemn him for any length of time (eg: as they would if he killed her in a fit of rage); Is this anti-Thomism? If so, I wonder, is it better for the man who takes another’s wife in adultery to kill her and claim he was afraid for his life from the first husband – (in the USA) and thus all men be allowed to remarry later – or not?

(eg: Is Thomistic sex still good on death row…?)

…I’m kind of slow sometimes… are you stating that Catholic Priests are teaching that if a spouse is murdered by the other spouse than he/she can marry another woman/man with the Church’s Blessings?

Maran atha!

Angel