 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 01:39 am |
|
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So I understand that the church only sees divorce as a legal thing, but in a spiritual sense we do not believe in divorce at all. Only in sacramental marriages or marriages that, well, are not really marriages as it turns out.
I was wondering though how we interpret this passage, or why or if we believe the greek does not say what the NIV translates it as. Because it seems to say that Jesus does allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulenss. Why is there this discrepancy? If this is what the text says, then why do we say we can not recognize divorce and remarriage because we see it as adultery (which is also faithful to this and other texts) yet Jesus seems to say that you are not committing adultery if you remarry if you divorced because of nfaithfulness? Is this not what the text should be read as? Do we go farther than what Jesus taught? I saw anNAB translation which said instead of the unfaithfullness part, said, unless it was illicit or something like that. How can I know with confidence what this text actually reads as?
Brian
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 09:24 am |
|
brian wrote:I was wondering though how we interpret this passage, or why
The Church has always taught that this passage permits divorce but not remarriage. The passage where Jesus says "What God has joined, man must not divide" does not say except in cases of adultery.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on divorce and remarriage that explains the Church's position in detail.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 09:52 am |
|
Matthew 19:9 RSV-CE: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.
Matthew 5:31–32:It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “except for the case of an illicit marriage,” and the New American Bible reads, “unless the marriage is unlawful.” This is the sense, based on a careful study of the original text and the absence of exceptions elsewhere, in which the Catholic Church understands the “exception” that Matthew presents.
A note on Matt. 5:31 in the Knox version states: “The Greek word… has commonly been taken to as meaning ‘unless she is unfaithful,’ but it can also be interpreted as meaning ‘whether she is unfaithful or not.’” Again, in a note on Matt. 19:9, it is stated: “It is to be observed… that our Lord is speaking of the man who puts away his innocent wife in order to marry another (this is often the force of the Hebrew ‘and’). He considers the case of the guilty husband with the innocent wife, and that of the innocent husband with the guilty wife; not that of the man who has a guilty wife and himself wants a change of partners. (Emphasis is in the original.) Thus it would be unsafe to infer that the husband has a right to re-marry.”
The Navarre Bible Commentary:5:31–32. The Law of Moses (Deut 24:1), which was laid down in ancient times, had tolerated divorce due to the hardness of heart of the early Hebrews. But it had not specified clearly the grounds on which divorce might be obtained. The rabbis worked out different sorts of interpretations, depending on which school they belonged to — solutions ranging from very lax to quite rigid. In all cases, only husband could repudiate wife, not vice-versa. A woman’s inferior position was eased somewhat by the device of a written document whereby the husband freed the repudiated woman to marry again if she wished. Against these rabbinical interpretations, Jesus re-establishes the original indissolubility of marriage as God instituted it (Gen 1 :27; 2:24; cf. Mt 19:4–6; Eph 1 :31; 1 Cor 7: 10).
[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: “unchastity”: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18:6–16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase except on the ground of unchastity does not occur in the parallel passage in Lk 16: 18. See also Matthew 19:9 (Mark 10:11–12), and especially 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.] The phrase, “except on the ground of unchastity”, should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of the absolute indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan peoples, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev 18) and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.
On the basis of Jesus’ teaching and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has ruled that in the specially grave case of adultery it is permissible for a married couple to separate, but without the marriage bond being dissolved; therefore, neither party may contract a new marriage.
The indissolubility of marriage was unhesitatingly taught by the Church from the very beginning; she demanded practical and legal recognition of this doctrine, expounded with full authority by Jesus (Mt 19:3–9; Mk 10:1–12; Lk 16:18) and by the Apostles (1 Cor 6:16; 7:10–11, 39; Rom 7:2–3; Eph 5:31f).
Following this, the commentary gives a series of magisterial texts propounding the Church’s authoritative position on the indissolubility of marriage. These come from the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XI and the Second Vatican Council.
The upshot of the entire body of commentary from Catholic sources shows that the passage has to do with an invalid marriage, not a valid one, and that “divorce” in that case is in fact what we today refer to as “nullity.”
David
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 10:20 am |
|
The indissolubility of marriage was unhesitatingly taught by the Church from the very beginning; she demanded practical and legal recognition of this doctrine, expounded with full authority by Jesus (Mt 19:3–9; Mk 10:1–12; Lk 16:18) and by the Apostles (1 Cor 6:16; 7:10–11, 39; Rom 7:2–3; Eph 5:31f).
I'm confused, then, David--what is the basis for "nullity" in valid marriages, if these passages are the only ones that deal with divorce? How is it that so many marriages are annulled and many remarry?
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 03:35 pm |
|
pam wrote:The indissolubility of marriage was unhesitatingly taught by the Church from the very beginning; she demanded practical and legal recognition of this doctrine, expounded with full authority by Jesus (Mt 19:3–9; Mk 10:1–12; Lk 16:18) and by the Apostles (1 Cor 6:16; 7:10–11, 39; Rom 7:2–3; Eph 5:31f).
I'm confused, then, David--what is the basis for "nullity" in valid marriages, if these passages are the only ones that deal with divorce? How is it that so many marriages are annulled and many remarry?
Pam, the Navarre Bible Commentary, as I quoted it above, says: “The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.” (Emphasis added for clarity.)
In my summary, I repeated this assertion: “The passage has to do with an invalid marriage, not a valid one.” (Emphasis added for clarity.)
Therefore, it appears that you have understood neither what I said nor what what the Church teaches. To reiterate: If a marriage is valid, it is indissoluble. If it is invalid, it is by that fact null. A declaration of nullity is a finding by a Church tribunal that a particular union is in fact not valid, and it is by that fact null. This is not something the Church enacts; it already exists through the action of the parties to the supposed marriage, and the Church is simply recognizing the existing fact.
The Protestant misunderstanding here (and you will note that the scriptural citation in the original question was from the NIV, a popular Evangelical-oriented version) is akin to their misunderstanding of how doctrine is not created but simply made explicit when the pope or a council declares a dogma. Their view of the pope “making up doctrine” is entirely erroneous.
Further, the question of why so many marriages are in fact null has to do with human failing, not with the Church’s doctrine. And those whose attempted marriage has been found null, if they later marry someone else, are not “remarrying” but in fact marrying for the first time, given that their previous attempt was not really a marriage.
So, to summarize:
1. The Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that a valid marriage is indissoluble.
2. No valid marriage can be declared null. If any marriage is found to be null, it is because it was invalid — not really a marriage in the first place.
3. If a party to a null marriage later marries someone else, this is not the same as a divorced person marrying someone else. The person is free to marry not because the previous marriage has been dissolved, but because there was in reality no previous marriage.
4. The passages in the Gospel According to Matthew which seem to some people to support an “exception” to the prohibition of divorce really refer to an invalid, or null, marriage. And as the Navarre Bible Commentary succinctly states, “Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.”
David
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 04:16 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: So, to summarize:
1. The Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that a valid marriage is indissoluble.
2. No valid marriage can be declared null. If any marriage is found to be null, it is because it was invalid — not really a marriage in the first place.
3. If a party to a null marriage later marries someone else, this is not the same as a divorced person marrying someone else. The person is free to marry not because the previous marriage has been dissolved, but because there was in reality no previous marriage.
4. The passages in the Gospel According to Matthew which seem to some people to support an “exception” to the prohibition of divorce really refer to an invalid, or null, marriage. And as the Navarre Bible Commentary succinctly states, “Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.”
I think it's also important to realize the distinction between a legal marriage and a sacramental (or religiously valid) marriage.
In Jewish terminology, Jesus was talking about ending a legal marriage, or dissolving a legal union, because of an impediment or invalidity that existed from the beginning. It has been explained to me that the passage means that an "infidelity" existed from the beginning; not necessarily adultery, but any failure to faithfully execute the vows. For example, a marriage contracted under duress is an infidelity to the vow of free and informed consent
When we consider the actions of the Church, we have to remember that the legal marriage has already ended through court action. The existance of a marital union from a legal standpoint is settled and is no longer an issue. In Jesus' time that was not the case. The decree of divorce ended not only the civil marriage, but the sacramental marriage as well. So Jesus was saying that a marriage could not be ended unless it was invalid from the beginning, which is exactly the position the Church takes now.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 04:36 pm |
|
All right. I mistated my question. I'll try again. Considering the position of the Church that all valid marriages are not to be declared null, and considering that today, we as Christians are not under Jewish law (as you quoted, The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18:6–16) or contracted with a Gentile. ), on what basis are so many marriages today considered invalid and nullified? Anyone I know who has applied has received an annulment. I realize it isn't 100%, and that I know a limited number of people--you would know far more--but from observation, it seems quite a high number, even if the process is long and difficult. The heart of Jesus teaching on divorce seems to stress the opposite.
This is one area that I have continued to wonder about as I explore the Catholic Church. Brian's question brought it to mind.
I felt what you said here was an unfair judgment, since some Catholic versions translate the word in question in a very similar manner and the issue becomes a difference in interpretation, not a criticism of the pope:
The Protestant misunderstanding here (and you will note that the scriptural citation in the original question was from the NIV, a popular Evangelical-oriented version) is akin to their misunderstanding of how doctrine is not created but simply made explicit when the pope or a council declares a dogma. Their view of the pope “making up doctrine” is entirely erroneous.
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 04:41 pm |
|
| Thank you for your explanation, Rick. I still don't quite understand, but I'll do some more reading.
|
|
|
brian Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 04:52 pm |
|
What I find hard to accept is that we actually could be confused as to what this text is saying. It seems like a huge difference between 'except for unfaithfulness' and 'unless it was illicit'
Have you explained this above? It is a little hard for me to see how the words could lead one to both of those possible translations.
Seems though that in order to defend the CAtholic viewpoint we have to say that we think the NIV is inaccurate in its rendering of this passage the way it looks to us?
Also, it might help to be able to find the earliest accounts of fathers or councils upholding the indissolubility (is thatthe right word) of marriage. Would this be found in Rock's faith fact that I have not read yet? Or could someone point me in a direction, bcause as a Catholic I do think that if it always was taught and practiced that way, it makes sense to trust in it.
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
brian wrote: Also, it might help to be able to find the earliest accounts of fathers or councils upholding the indissolubility (is thatthe right word) of marriage. Would this be found in Rock's faith fact that I have not read yet? Or could someone point me in a direction, bcause as a Catholic I do think that if it always was taught and practiced that way, it makes sense to trust in it.
CUF doesn't usually quote the Fathers extensively; Catholic Answers does. Read their tract on the Permanence of Marriage and you'll see lots of references from the Fathers, starting with Paul.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 05:13 pm |
|
pam wrote: on what basis are so many marriages today considered invalid and nullified?
On the basis of flawed consent.
A valid, sacramental marriage requires a freely given, fully informed consent by both parties who are consenting adults and free to marry.
How many couples do you know who enter marriages with false expectations end up getting divorced? How many women marry a man because he promises to change? How many are just to young to understand the commitment they are undertaking? How many get married because all their friends are getting married? How many are pressured by grandparents and parents? How many seek financial security and marry someone who makes a good living? How many walk down the aisle with blinders on and one eye closed? How many get married to get out of their parents' home? How many are just to young to undertake a lifetime commitment? How many get married because they're already living together and it's the next step? How many get married because it's the only thing they haven't already done? How many get married because they're already pregnant?
None of these are valid reasons for a marriage, and all could be grounds for declaring that a sacramental marriage never took place. Yes they exchanged vows and yes they were in a legally recognized union, but it was flawed even before it began. Through a Declaration of Nullity, the Church just recognizes that the marriage should have never happened in the first place. There was no freely given, fully informed consent between consenting adults, so the requirements for a marriage covenant were never present.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 06:37 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: How many couples do you know who enter marriages with false expectations end up getting divorced? How many women marry a man because he promises to change? How many are just to young to understand the commitment they are undertaking? How many get married because all their friends are getting married? How many are pressured by grandparents and parents? How many seek financial security and marry someone who makes a good living? How many walk down the aisle with blinders on and one eye closed? How many get married to get out of their parents' home? How many are just to young to undertake a lifetime commitment? How many get married because they're already living together and it's the next step? How many get married because it's the only thing they haven't already done? How many get married because they're already pregnant?
Your list includes every marriage I've ever observed. And that's my point exactly. Is this what Jesus meant when he talked about divorce? Is flawed consent dealt with so broadly in the catechism? How did illicit become "flawed consent"?
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
pam wrote: How did illicit become "flawed consent"?
Here is how the Catechism describes matrimonial consent:
1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband." This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.
In the United States, some 75% of all petitions for nullity are granted. In the rest of the world, the number is closer to 25%. Are petitions granted in the U.S. that shouldn't be? Probably. But American children are also less mature and have higher expectations than those in most cultures. In Louisiana, the bishops have mandated a marriage preparation program in an effort to reduce the number of failed marriages, and where it is taken seriously, it's working. (Some priests just sign off on it without going through the required steps, and that defeats the purpose.) The Vatican added a requirement that all petitions for nullity be reviewed on the provincial level, and some are even sent on for review to the Vatican.
Proper, informed consent is vital for a valid marriage covenant. Without proper consent, a marriage is invalid (that is, illicit, or not lawful). That's also recognized in civil law (remember Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage?).
I have read articles that speculate that no American under the age of 25 is capable of giving a truly informed consent, and that may well be true. My marriage was certainly flawed. We made it work anyway.
The Church as always taught that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved but that an illicit marriage can be. You can read the CUF and CA links I posted earlier in this thread for a theological discussion and quotes from scripture and the Early Church Fathers.
The answer, in my opinion, is not to deny that the marriage was invalid; it is to make it harder to get married.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 10:10 pm |
|
brian wrote:What I find hard to accept is that we actually could be confused as to what this text is saying. It seems like a huge difference between 'except for unfaithfulness' and 'unless it was illicit.'
I agree with you, Brian. There seems no way to bridge the differences. One way needs to be right, the other wrong.
Prudence would indicate that we investigate what Jesus was referring to when he made his pronouncement in Matthew 19:9. The wording as found in the NIV, the NJB and the NAB is inexact across the board; these are interpretations rather than translations, and I cited the Catholic versions simply as contrast. This is why I preferred the more literal RSV-CE, which uses the word “unchastity.” Other suggestions that may be considered: “fornication” (DRV, following the Vulgate; the KJV concurs); “immorality” (NASB); “lewdness” (Webster); Young’s Literal Translation version renders it “if not for whoredom.” (Note that most of the above versions are Protestant. I have selected them on purpose to avoid a Catholic bias.)
But where did Jesus get the idea? Deuteronomy 24:1 (RSV-CE): “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house.…” The KJV and DRV use the word “uncleanness”; NJB “impropriety”; other (mostly Protestant) versions do not stray far from this, the most popular choices being “impropriety” and “unseemliness.”
The point is this: it appears that the Greek word in Matthew is perhaps vague or inexact. Since it is a translation of the Aramaic that Jesus would have been speaking with his interlocutors, we are getting his words third hand. This means that the original Hebrew word back in the Torah is probably the key to understanding the meaning of a similar prescription in the New Testament context. Something legal, not just lewd, seems to be the reason for the repudiation of the spouse in Deuteronomy. It seems likely, therefore, that Jesus’ words refer to something that is broader than sexual conduct. Whatever it is, it must call into question the marriage’s very validity.
Now two linguistically possible and opposed interpretations are offered by the NIV and the NAB: the first takes the word to mean “marital unfaithfulness,” while the second prefers “unlawful marriage.” Even if we take the above criterion into account, we still need to ask what the goal is in the allowance of the “exception.” Are we considering it as an exception to the prohibition on divorce, or a barrier to the validity of the marriage?
The underlying assumption of the NIV’s rendering is that divorce and remarriage are morally acceptable. This flies in the face of their absolute prohibition in other parts of the New Testament (such as Christ’s words, “From the beginning it was not so” – Matthew 19:8) and 2,000 years of constant Christian tradition.
The underlying assumption of the NAB is that human failings can lead to a situation where a union is actually invalid. This preserves the universal prohibition on divorce and remarriage while allowing for irregularities and their reparation, after the original intent of the Jewish law.
Rick has addressed your question regarding early accounts of the indissolubility of marriage.
David
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Rick, and for including the quotes from the Catechism. I do get the impression from the numbers you quoted (75% of petitions for nullity granted in the US, about 25% elsewhere in the world) that the definition or interpretation of what makes consent "flawed" is stretched a great deal in our culture. It seems a great leap from "constraint," "coercion," and "grave external fear" to the reasons for annulments today--the list you gave is probably very accurate and few come close to the seriousness expressed in the Catechism.
We're all broken people. Divorces and separations are sadly inevitable. We all go into marriage with flaws of some sort, nevertheless thinking our marriage will be the good one, the one that lasts. You made yours work. Mine didn't. But according to the Catechism, annulment shouldn't be so easily attained, perhaps rare. Is it so hard to accept that one should not marry again?
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 10:51 pm |
|
pam wrote: Is it so hard to accept that one should not marry again?
Given our culture's emphasis on sexuality, I'm afraid it is very hard to accept. At least serial polygamy (i.e., divorce and remarriage) is preferable to blatant promiscuity, at least in society.
I'm afraid with the redefinition of "marriage" to include casual and homosexual relationships, we are nearing the point where promiscuity will become the norm rather than the exception. We may already be there.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14th, 2007 11:51 pm |
|
pam wrote:I felt what you said here was an unfair judgment, since some Catholic versions translate the word in question in a very similar manner and the issue becomes a difference in interpretation, not a criticism of the pope.
What I said about misunderstandings refers not to the idea that a difference over the concept of marriage is actually a criticism of the pope, but that the arguments of the two misunderstandings are similar. There is an underlying assumption that controls the Protestant viewpoint. In the one case, it is the idea that if, at a certain point in Church history, a dogma is defined, the pope must have “dreamed it up.” The concept of making explicit what has been accepted implicitly from the beginning never seems to enter their minds.
In the other case, the underlying assumption is that a stated principle (supposedly an “exception”) which appears nowhere else modifies the fundamental thrust of the divine legislation, such that if one reads “except for X,” it somehow means that X is the norm rather than the exception. The concept, in the context of this discussion, of an absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage is not an option to these people because they see a supposed exception as turning the tables and making anything and everything possible, even if the supposed exception really means, on linguistic, cultural and traditional grounds, something entirely different than what they assume.
This whole line of thought reminds me of the often fanciful explanations that children provide when asked what is behind a given natural phenomenon. The difference is that the child usually remains open to a more scientific explanation that he can “grow into” as he matures.
As I mentioned earlier, the problem of a high incidence of invalid marriages in American society is a different question, best answered in a separate thread, although I see that discussion of it has already been going on here while I was at work. My succinct reply, meanwhile, was that it has to do with human failings, ultimately what Rick calls “flawed consent.”
As you may know, the Vatican is concerned that the high number of applications for a declaration of nullity and the high percentage of actual declarations of nullity in this country may be indicative of acute problems both among the Catholic laity who are entering invalid unions in such large numbers and possible abuse of the criteria for a declaration of nullity on the part of tribunals. I am personally convinced that this society is very sick, and Catholics living within it are not immune to the plague.
David
|
|
|
pam Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Former Non-denominational Bible Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15th, 2007 09:28 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
What I said about misunderstandings refers not to the idea that a difference over the concept of marriage is actually a criticism of the pope, but that the arguments of the two misunderstandings are similar. There is an underlying assumption that controls the Protestant viewpoint. In the one case, it is the idea that if, at a certain point in Church history, a dogma is defined, the pope must have “dreamed it up.” The concept of making explicit what has been accepted implicitly from the beginning never seems to enter their minds.
I'm sorry, but I'm not able to follow your line of reasoning. Perhaps your experience as a Protestant was different from mine, but I've never encountered any Protestant thinking on divorce that was connected to or a reaction to Church dogma. The beliefs are purely based on Scripture such as the Matthew passage quoted by Brian at the beginning of this thread. According to their understanding of the word translated "marital unfaithfulness" in his, "immorality" in mine, the Protestants groups I know take what Jesus says literally--that divorce happens, but one should not remarry, unless marital unfaithfulness/immorality was the cause of the divorce. The passage in Mark doesn't give any exceptions. Jesus says strongly that if you remarry, you are committing adultery. (Mark 10:11-12) It seems ironic that many more exceptions, and far less serious ones than immorality, result in the current practice of granting annulments. It's good to hear what you wrote in your last paragraph:
As you may know, the Vatican is concerned that the high number of applications for a declaration of nullity and the high percentage of actual declarations of nullity in this country may be indicative of acute problems both among the Catholic laity who are entering invalid unions in such large numbers and possible abuse of the criteria for a declaration of nullity on the part of tribunals.
It's definitely a situation shared by Protestants and Catholics alike in today's culture. What I love about the Church is that it regards marriage with great respect and as a Sacrament, yet remains involved and cares about people when marriages dissolve. When appropriate, there is annulment--which is a very merciful provision when there have been extreme circumstances in a marriage.
I have a much better understanding of the Catholic views on both divorce and annulment now, after this discussion.
Last edited on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 10:22 am by pam
|
|
|
Juan Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 12:18 am |
|
Matt 19:7 (NIV)"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matt 19:7 (Douay Rheims) 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm
Without getting into what was previously discussed, I prefer the Douay's interpretation.
And I believe Jesus is referring to a situation such as the Samaritan woman's:
John 4:16 Jesus saith to her: Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered, and said: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: Thou hast said well, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly.
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=4&l=17&f=s#x
So, this woman was living in sin. Yet Jesus recognized her lover as her husband. This is consistent with other Bible references to illicit sex. St. Paul also recognizes the power of the sexual embrace:
1 Corinthians 6
16 Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.
Anyone living in sin can dissolve that union because it is not valid in God's eyes.
So I understand that the church only sees divorce as a legal thing, but in a spiritual sense we do not believe in divorce at all. Only in sacramental marriages or marriages that, well, are not really marriages as it turns out.
That's how I understand it as well.
I was wondering though how we interpret this passage, or why or if we believe the greek does not say what the NIV translates it as. Because it seems to say that Jesus does allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulenss.
IN MY OPINION, this verse says nothing about marital unfaithfulness. Why, because Jesus just said that Moses' bill of divorce was not God's will. The only reason that Moses permitted divorce was for unfaithfulness, either before or after the wedding. Remember, these were the days of the "white handkerchief test." This is the reason why St. Joseph himself considered "quietly putting away" Our Lord's Mother.
And Jesus Christ has just said that Moses only did it because of the hardness of man's heart. It is not God's plan from the beginning. It is invalid.
Why is there this discrepancy? If this is what the text says, then why do we say we can not recognize divorce and remarriage because we see it as adultery (which is also faithful to this and other texts)
There are too many incomplete ideas in this sentence for me. What do you mean "which is also faithful to this and other texts"? I'm not aware that Jesus permits divorce for any reason in this or any other text. Neither does St. Paul, who also touches upon divorce, but only permits it when one is unevenly yoked and the nonChristian party leaves. The Christian party may not leave:
1 Cor 7:10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. 11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. 12 For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.
yet Jesus seems to say that you are not committing adultery if you remarry if you divorced because of nfaithfulness?
No, He doesn't seem to say such a thing at all. The NIV is innovating with that interpretation. From antiquity, the Fathers of the Church have interpreted that divorce and remarriage is not permitted for any reason.
Is this not what the text should be read as? Do we go farther than what Jesus taught? I saw anNAB translation which said instead of the unfaithfullness part, said, unless it was illicit or something like that. How can I know with confidence what this text actually reads as?
Believe the Church.
Proverbs 3
5 Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence.
Matthew 18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Br_Carlo Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 153 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24th, 2007 09:06 am |
|
God's peace. Juan brought up an interesting point that bears upon the seriousness of the liceity of a marriage and its inviolability in the OT, but one that I doubt many readers know about. He said:
"The only reason that Moses permitted divorce was for unfaithfulness, either before or after the wedding. Remember, these were the days of the 'white handkerchief test.' This is the reason why St. Joseph himself considered 'quietly putting away' Our Lord's Mother."
Just what was the "white handkerchief test?" In Deut. 22: 13-21 (NJB): "If a man marries a wife, and sleeps with her and then turns against her, and | | |