Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[One_point]

Hello,

As a matter of fact, He did say that. Mark 10:11-12: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

How we interpret the “exception clause” in St. Matthew’s gospel has to take into account this statement in St. Mark’s gospel, and vice versa.

Dan

Likewise we must also take into account also st Paul

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

That’s how the Apostles understood Jesus. So we must take into account too.

This the only exception Paul gives:

*To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?*

So st paul doesn’t give any exceptions for believers apart from mixed marriages.

 

[pnewton]

Then the Church has taught you incorrectly, because what Jesus actually said was:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Note that:

(a) Jesus explicitly said that infidelity justifies divorce

Actually, that is not what is said. Also, you have to take into account Mark 10:

10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Note there is no exemption.

 

[Burdock]

Jesus did say that divorce was not allowed except for adultery , ive just b looked it up.

 

[Burdock]

Pnewton, that cats rather annoying.

 

[phil19034]

Likewise we must also take into account also st Paul

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

That’s how the Apostles understood Jesus. So we must take into account too.

This the only exception Paul gives:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

So st paul doesn’t give any exceptions for believers apart from mixed marriages.

Right, he gives us the Pauline Privilege option and the Book of Ezra gives us the Petrine Privilege option.

Here is a good article about this: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272

 

[Seraphim73]

Right, he gives us the Pauline Privilege option and the Book of Ezra gives us the Petrine Privilege option.

Here is a good article about this: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272

So the words of Jesus aren’t absolute?

 

[weller2]

Hello,
As a matter of fact, He did say that. Mark 10:11-12: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

How we interpret the “exception clause” in St. Matthew’s gospel has to take into account this statement in St. Mark’s gospel, and vice versa.

Yes, I know Mark’s version. Still, the undeniable fact is that we have a canonical text with the clause.

Further, observe that Mark’s version also does not say that the abandoned spouse commits adultery if they remarry – it discusses solely the person which initiates the divorce. The proposition that the abandoned cannot remarry is much more extreme than saying “divorce is adultery” – so you would expect it to be explicitly included… but it’s not.

Also, the interpretation with the clause is more logical. Consider the following scenario: A husband leaves his wife and lives with another woman, thus committing adultery. Under the exception clause, his wife is now permitted to formally divorce him (as the relationship exists no more anyway), and remarry. Without the exception clause, she is forever locked into a defunct marriage, which is fundamentally unjust.

Keeping in mind that the marriage is a contract, the Catholic position is like saying that once you’ve hired someone for the job, you are obliged to pay their salary until they die, even if they don’t show up for the job anymore.

 

[phil19034]

So the words of Jesus aren’t absolute?

I’m not sure what you mean. The Orthodox had these two Privileges too until they left the Catholic Church. Also, the Orthodox up to allow 2-3 divorces, but not 4.

The Pauline Privilege is when one member of a married couple converts to Christianity and the non-baptized spouse leaves him/her over the conversion. The new Christian is then allowed to marry. The Christian cannot be at fault.

The Petrine Privilege (which is only allowed under extreme situations) is when a baptized Christian validly marries a non-Christian. Then, over time the baptized Christian either begins to fully practice his/her Catholic faith and the spouse leaves; or the non-baptized spouse begins to practice his/her faith and leaves. In that instance the Pope may grant the Petrine Privilege. But the Christian cannot be at fault.

 

[Seraphim73]

I’m not sure what you mean. The Orthodox had these two Privileges too until they left the Catholic Church. Also, the Orthodox up to allow 2-3 divorces, but not 4.

The Pauline Privilege is when one member of a married couple converts to Christianity and the non-baptized spouse leaves him/her over the conversion. The new Christian is then allowed to marry. The Christian cannot be at fault.

The Petrine Privilege (which is only allowed under extreme situations) is when a baptized Christian validly marries a non-Christian. Then, over time the baptized Christian either begins to fully practice his/her Catholic faith and the spouse leaves; or the non-baptized spouse begins to practice his/her faith and leaves. In that instance the Pope may grant the Petrine Privilege. But the Christian cannot be at fault.

I know what they are. I’m simply making the point that the Catholic Church does not take Christ’s words as the whole story because you make an exception He did not.

 

[Brandall]

Then the Church has taught you incorrectly, because what Jesus actually said was:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Note that:

(a) Jesus explicitly said that infidelity justifies divorce

(b) Jesus never said that the abandoned partner also commits adultery if they remarry

The core assumption behind the annulment is that the marriage has not been contracted validly in the first place. This essentially means that either (a) one of the partners has committed fraud and/or (b) the Church has failed to do the due dilligence to verify that they are fit to marry.

Thus, having your spouse cheat on you is definitely NOT a valid reason for annulment UNLESS you manage to demonstrate that they had such intention BEFORE the marriage was contracted (and therefore committed fraud). Of course this is not what usually happens. What usually happens is that people enter relationship without the intention to cheat and THEN get bored with their partner.

Obviously, my understanding of the rules for annulment are lacking. It was my assumption that infidelity was reason for an annulment and I was dismayed that wasn’t the case. After a bit of searching, the Catholic Church translates the two passages in Matthew differently than your translation.

This is from the bible link at usccb.org.

Matthew 5:19 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Matthew 5:32 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.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199

 

[phil19034]

I know what they are. I’m simply making the point that the Catholic Church does not take Christ’s words as the whole story because you make an exception He did not.

I’m still not following you. The Catholic Church does NOT allow divorce among sacramentally married Christians. The Orthodox Church does. How are you taking into account Christ’s words as the whole story if you allow exceptions to sacramental marriages?

The Church does take Christ’s words into account because we do not allow divorce from sacramental marriages. We only allow for two very unique situations, both of which the Catholic did not divorce his/her spouse. The spouse divorced the Catholic.

We are allowing what the St. Paul the Apostle defined in Scripture. Are you saying that St. Paul’s rules regarding the Pauline privilege didn’t take into account Christ’s words?

The Petrine Privilege is extremely rare and requires the Pope’s approval; with is based on the apostles’ understanding of what Christ meant and based on real meaning of the Book of Ezra.

 

[Seraphim73]

I’m still not following you. The Catholic Church does NOT allow divorce among sacramentally married Christians. The Orthodox Church does. How are you taking into account Christ’s words as the whole story if you allow exceptions to sacramental marriages?

The Church does take Christ’s words into account because we do not allow divorce from sacramental marriages. We only allow for two very unique situations, both of which the Catholic did not divorce his/her spouse. The spouse divorced the Catholic.

We are allowing what the St. Paul the Apostle defined in Scripture. Are you saying that St. Paul’s rules regarding the Pauline privilege didn’t take into account Christ’s words?

The Petrine Privilege is extremely rare and requires the Pope’s approval; with is based on the apostles’ understanding of what Christ meant and based on real meaning of the Book of Ezra.

It’s St Paul who makes the distinction you are talking about, not Jesus, and of course he doesn’t make any statements at all about “natural” vs “sacramental” marriages. St Paul even says explicitly that it’s his teaching not the Lord’s. So even St Paul does not adhere strictly to what Christ actually says. My point is if St Paul as an Apostles can make an exception why can’t the successors to the Apostles? Who is of greater authority, St Paul or the Vicar of Christ?

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church does allow for civil divorce, according to the Catechism. In such a case, one is not free to remarry another.

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Then please explain why Jesus said

anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

and not simply

anyone who divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery.

First, if someone is cheating, then we can as well say that the relationship is no more, so why not simply formally recognize the new status quo?

Second, what you are ignoring is that the marriage is a CONTRACT. It is a contract sworn before God, but at the fundamental level, it is still a contract. What Jesus is saying is that if one party is violating the terms of contract then the other party is free to terminate the contract. But it does not have to, which is another important point: the power now shifts from the cheater to the cheated. If the cheater is merely bored and looking for some action on the side, then the mere threat of divorce will bring him/her in line; on the other hand, if the cheater intends to establish a new relationship, then the refusal to divorce will foil his/her plans. This is the same type of a power shift which happens when turning the other cheek.

Third, you are ignoring that Jesus’ comment was made in context of an environment which permitted at will divorce.

Fourth, you are ignoring that Jewish law punished (female) adultery by stoning. (NB - Jesus never challenged that law directly, instead he simply told everyone to mind their own business.) If a cheating wife can be killed, then giving her husband an option to divorce her instead looks like a merciful thing to do…

PRmerger’s trouble with this as far as I can tell is if divorce is allowed due to adultery, then that also means some dude who wants to divorce his wife only has to go out and commit adultery. And bingo he can get a divorce. But I understand what you believe Jesus was referring to.

 

[PRmerger]

Or Jesus meant the spouse whose spouse cheated on them could divorce. You call it adding to Scripture. I call it using reason just as we add to Scripture that infants were in households and not immersed.

What I call it is making it sound palatable. What you would like it to say.

There is no reasonable assumption that Jesus meant only the cuckholded spouse could re-marry. It doesn’t say it in the text. At all.

As far as the assumption that there are indeed infants in households, well, that is, of course, reasonable to conclude.

 

[PRmerger]

Then please explain why Jesus said

anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

and not simply

anyone who divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Because sexual immorality should actually be translated to: illicit marriage.

The divorce loophole doesn’t make sense. Jesus would never have given someone an “out” so he could licitly divorce his wife by doing something gravely immoral.

What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.
catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199

 

[PRmerger]

I’m still not following you. The Catholic Church does NOT allow divorce among sacramentally married Christians.

This is incorrect.

Divorces are tolerated.

Divorce and re-marriage is not.

 

[TMC]

I’m still not following you. The Catholic Church does NOT allow divorce among sacramentally married Christians. The Orthodox Church does. How are you taking into account Christ’s words as the whole story if you allow exceptions to sacramental marriages?

The Church does take Christ’s words into account because we do not allow divorce from sacramental marriages. We only allow for two very unique situations, both of which the Catholic did not divorce his/her spouse. The spouse divorced the Catholic.

We are allowing what the St. Paul the Apostle defined in Scripture. Are you saying that St. Paul’s rules regarding the Pauline privilege didn’t take into account Christ’s words?

The Petrine Privilege is extremely rare and requires the Pope’s approval; with is based on the apostles’ understanding of what Christ meant and based on real meaning of the Book of Ezra.

When considering Christ’s statement, why would it make any difference if the marriage was sacramental? Christ does not make that distinction. Actually, none of the marriages Christ was referring could have been sacramental, because there was no such thing at that time.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger’s trouble with this as far as I can tell is if divorce is allowed due to adultery, then that also means some dude who wants to divorce his wife only has to go out and commit adultery. And bingo he can get a divorce.

Egg-zactly.

And that’s a whacky paradigm for Our Lord to be proclaiming.

Clearly, that’s not what he was proclaiming. Adultery is not a loophole. Rather, when there is an illicit union, only then can someone re-marry…because there never was a marriage in the first place.

Now that ^…

*that *makes sense.

 

[PRmerger]

First, if someone is cheating, then we can as well say that the relationship is no more, so why not simply formally recognize the new status quo?

Well, that’s not the Catholic way to look at things.

Perhaps the relationship is severed when there is adultery, but the marriage still exists.

Forever. Well, at least until death.

What God has joined, no man can separate.

Second, what you are ignoring is that the marriage is a CONTRACT. It is a contract sworn before God, but at the fundamental level, it is still a contract. What Jesus is saying is that if one party is violating the terms of contract then the other party is free to terminate the contract.

Marriage is a sacrament.

Calling marriage a contract is like calling the Eucharist a piece of bread. Or like calling the Bible a book. Or like calling a mother a womb.