Today's reading Mt 19:3-12

[ccfbob]

This has always troubled me, vs 9 -"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful)
and marries another commits adultery.”

According to www.apostolicbible.com and other Bible translations, it seems that they are talking about adultry and the like. Even in Mt 5:31, we see the same thing.

I am a faithful son of the Church, but would like a response that I could use with my non-Catholic friends. The Greek here seems pretty clear.

Help!:bowdown2:

God’s Blessings to all.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s not talking about adultery, but about fornication. This verse gives the justification for annulments, not divorce. An unlawful marriage is not a true sacramental marriage–it is essentially fornication. An annulment makes the declaration that it was in fact an unlawful marriage and therefore not binding.

The people who try and make it seem like adultery is an out from a real marriage are those who do not want to bear the difficult cross of forgiving a spouse who has sinned in that way.

 

[patientone]

It’s not talking about adultery, but about fornication. This verse gives the justification for annulments, not divorce. An unlawful marriage is not a true sacramental marriage–it is essentially fornication. An annulment makes the declaration that it was in fact an unlawful marriage and therefore not binding.

The people who try and make it seem like adultery is an out from a real marriage are those who do not want to bear the difficult cross of forgiving a spouse who has sinned in that way.

 

[patientone]

Oops, forgot my two cents: I agree although an unlawful (non-sacramental) marriage isn’t essentialy tied to fornication, it could be from a lack of binding element(s), such as non-connsumation or another element that is required by the Church, thus the viability of an annulment. Unfortunately many put the cart before the horse on this one and if one takes a moment too hear this scripture from the Church’s perspective it makes perfect sense; Re-marrying without an annulment = adultery.

The Gospel goes on stating that some are not able to marry; by birth, by acts of others, or for the Kingdom. The Catechisim of the Catholic Church is an excellent resource for this.

 

[Nita]

This has always troubled me, vs 9 -"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful)
and marries another commits adultery.”

According to www.apostolicbible.com and other Bible translations, it seems that they are talking about adultry and the like. Even in Mt 5:31, we see the same thing.

I am a faithful son of the Church, but would like a response that I could use with my non-Catholic friends. The Greek here seems pretty clear.

Help!:bowdown2:

God’s Blessings to all.

I suppose one of the most obvious things to point out to them is that there are two different Greek words used in the verse - “porneia” sometimes translated fornication and “moilatai” translated adultery. If Our Lord had meant “adultery” in both cases, why wouldn’t He have used the same word.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This exception also appears only here in this Gospel:
Notice also, that the very first sentence sets the stage:

Matth 19:1 → Judaea beyond Jordan <–;

The immediate question asked of those trying to trap Jesus is marriage – be suspicious and think about why.

This is king Herod’s territory (Herod is named after his father). And whom has Herod married but Herodias (and yes that was her name before marriage… think about it).

So now, Jesus being baptized by John ought to be expected to say something which would support John would he not? And Herodias hated John – so they hope to incite her wrath a second time.

The Pharisees would love to ask a perverted question putting Jesus directly on the spot if he answered that NO marriage could be seperated for any reason. He would have had to publicly condemn Herodias on the spot – risk imprisonment – etc.

So, Jesus does the smart thing – places an exception which means prostitution or fornication (either one). So now the pharisees would have to show that Herodias was (pornea) in order to trap Jesus – and then THEY would be the ones smearing her and going to prison…

Heriodas was married to Philip (but not Philip the tetrarch – it was her daughter Salome who later married that one.). Herod had also divorced a wife so that he could marry Herodias. It is in this political bombshell that the question is asked by the Pharisees.

But a prostitute is never a wife, it’s an act of lust only without permission from God, nor true promise (she betrayed one man already), I hesitate to even speak of love here.

The statement obviously does not mean that if one has relations with a prostitute / incest (inuendo about Herod with Herodias) that Herod now could marry her since she committed adultury with him (eg. Even King David set Uriah up for death rather than keep her in adultury).

The best evidence is simply to know that John the baptist said “Herodias IS philip’s wife” and that the question is being asked in the adulturer’s territory.