THE NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA SAYS
RELATIONSHIPS AFTER MARITAL BREAKDOWN
The Bible is against divorce for remarriage under all circumstances for
it holds that once a valid marriage takes place it can only be dissolved by
death. The truth about marriage is that
it is about having sex with nobody else until death they do part. It is not about love for it doesn’t countenance
parting when love ceases. The living
together is not even important and it is enough to have sex once. Marriage is not about love but about sex
which is why it cannot be holy or sensible.
When it is about sex that might not be very good then logically divorce
is wrong for divorcing is done for the sake of happiness and marriage treats
happiness with indifference.
The Church says that sexual activity outside of marriage even
masturbation and sexual fantasy is immoral.
Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already
committed adultery with her in his heart which supports the Church’s
prudishness. Today we know that if we don’t
masturbate or let ourselves enjoy sexual daydreams we will never get far with
enjoying our sexuality and our performance in bed will be dreadful. We need to know our own bodies and minds to
enjoy our sexuality. We all like
different kinds of sex and pre-marital sex is important and necessary. To say
that sex outside marriage is wrong is to say that marriage is good and
holy.
The Church says that to have sex outside marriage means you are telling
the person you are having sex with, “I am giving you my whole self now. This means I am giving you myself for life.” They argue that sex is only suitable for
marriage, where a man takes a woman for life as his sexual partner, for outside
of marriage it is simply a lie. Sex in
marriage then means that the husband is telling his wife that he belongs to
nobody but her for life and vice versa.
This is simply utter rubbish.
If sex means you give your whole self then why say that it means you give
yourself to your partner for life? Why
not eternity? Why should it just be for
this life? If you really give your whole
self then you give yourself forever.
If sex is giving your whole self to another person then how can it be
right to look for a new partner or wife or husband if that person dies? To say I give myself to you until divorce if
it happens is putting a condition on it as much as saying I give myself to you
until you die is. It is not giving your
whole self. If you give your whole self
to a person you will be like the person who having lost their beloved wife or
husband refuses to even think about a new partner for they loved the old
partner so much.
Sex isn’t the only way you give yourself to another person. You give yourself to your child when you get
pregnant. That doesn’t mean you
shouldn’t have any more babies or that the child should stay with you instead
of getting married and going away. When
you tell your sweetheart that you love her or him and nobody else and swear
undying love are you not giving yourself in a deeper way that sex could ever
signify? The closeness of that moment
could be closer than sex. Don’t you see
then the absurdity of the Christian doctrine that sex means you are giving
yourself not just now but for life?
When you work you are giving your precious time to your employer and
yourself. You could be dead next week
and better off having a party instead of working and yet you work. You put the job before the thought that you
could be dead and should be living it up in the meantime. Does this giving yourself mean you should
work to this person until death?
You could intend a great commitment to a person through sex outside
marriage and then when you get married you may feel less committed. Marriage can change relationships. To say that unenthusiastic and unloving sex
in marriage is good for it promises and signifies lifelong commitment and that
sex between two unmarried people who are really into each other and are soul
mates should but does not just because they are not married and so is a lie, is
just bigoted cruel insulting nonsense.
It is really just saying that there is no honest commitment without a
simple ceremony. Did you know that you
are insincere when you take out a loan wearing white shoes?
If sex outside marriage is lying to the sexual partner that he or she is the
one for life as the Church says then sex within marriage when one of you
believe in divorce is also lying.
Why? For the marriage could end
in divorce and the sex is not saying, “I take you for life no matter how bad
things get”, but, “I take you for life but if things get too bad we will get
divorced”.
How far must a man and woman go before their sex is saying, “I take you
for life”? Does oral sex say that? Anal sex? Heavy petting? Foreplay? Masturbation? Is ejaculation necessary? Can you see how saying sex says that
confines people to a silly biological morality in which it is physics that
count more than feelings and intentions?
Nobody ever gives their whole selves to anybody. You might give your body and your time in sex
but that is all. Are husbands who don’t
feel much for their wives giving their whole selves? They are holding back and yet the Church
permits their sex. As long as separation
or divorce is allowed by having sex you are saying that you are giving yourself
only as long as the other person doesn’t do something that entitles you to look
for a separation or divorce! That is not
giving your whole self.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 seems to allow divorce. These are the only regulations for divorce in
the Old Testament. Jesus could be
interpreted as having said that Moses allowed it here because the people were
too stubborn to obey God’s will that man and woman should be one flesh for life
and Moses did not necessarily think divorce was okay. Some scholars disagree with Jesus for Moses
said a man could divorce his wife just because he found something immoral in
her which is so vague and therefore very liberal so Moses went so far that the
peoples’ stubbornness had nothing to do with his law for he could have worked
out some compromise. Since Jesus
believed in Moses I believe Jesus held that Moses could not be explicit on what
grounds he would allow divorce for the people were too vicious. Jesus thought it was up to him to decide what
Moses meant. Perhaps Jesus thought that the
divorce law was absolutely right but should not have been revealed for it was
too open to abuse but that God and Moses had to put it in the Torah for the
people were too stubborn to do without it.
This would imply that divorce is fine but only under very restricted and
extreme conditions but a blanket ban was imposed by Jesus for even then it
would be abused and the way would be opened for misuse. Even then there is nothing said about a right
to remarry.
Suppose Moses did allow divorce though God did
not want it. Though divorce is sanctioned as a civil
decree and even Catholics allow it when it is believed to be only just that and
when it is necessary to preserve overriding rights but not a
dissolution in the sight of God, remarriage is not explicitly approved
of in Moses’ text. It is not enough for
any scripture to allow divorce. It has
to say it allows remarriage for that alone would clearly prove that the
marriage bond was not considered indissoluble and that divorce in the Bible wasn’t
just a form of legal separation without any right to marry. Separation is always divorce in a sense because
the Church says that marriage is the undivided union of man and woman which requires them to live together for life (page 263, Moral
Philosophy) for if it were not for life the union would not be as
strong. It follows that they have a duty
to be as close as possible and even if they cannot get along they have to live
together.
The marriage is indissoluble for the estranged husband and wife still
have the right to have sex but in a divorce as Jesus means it the other rights
to be close to one another and share everything and the property are gone so
the marriage is partly dissolved. It
follows from Jesus’ ban on divorce that a wife should take abuse and beatings
and cheating from her husband. If she
needs to do something to protect herself walking out is not an option. I repeat, logic says that if remarriage is
wrong then marriage cannot be dissolved.
If marriage cannot be dissolved it means even an estranged husband and
wife still have the right to have sex with one another and no right to have sex
with anybody else. People in the
Christian context have no right to have sex unless they are prepared to support
and help one another as much they humanly can so it follows that separation is
always wrong. The right to have sex
implies that the husband owns the wife’s body and personhood which her body is
part of. When he owns her physically and
emotionally it follows that this right takes pre-eminence to her welfare. For example, a wife who leaves her husband
because he beats her up has no right to when he owns her for sex.
Even if the wife cannot live with the husband and he cheats on her and
beats her up, because sex expresses marriage and makes it real, it follows that
she should have conditions set up so that they can continue to have sex.
Times, critics have said this: “It is said the regulations in Deuteronomy
24 do not expressly permit or approve of divorce meaning the ending of the
marriage bond of fidelity but just seek to control divorce which could still be
considered an intolerable evil by God that he has to put up with for the people
are too headstrong. We reject this view
for the regulations certainly imply that divorce is right for God did not have
to tolerate it or to forbid a first wife to return to her man after she married
and divorced somebody else. Jesus would
have noticed this when he himself gave out laws that the people loathed and yet
he deceptively said that God had no choice but to put up with divorce! The Law is tolerant of a man divorcing his
wife for finding something indecent in her.
This could be anything. When a
law is worded like this it must be perfectly legal to divorce on a whim. What isn’t made illegal is legal. The
But the passage only discusses what a man who gives his wife a divorce is
to do. It does not say if the marriage
is really ended or not.
Deuteronomy says the first husband must not take her back as his
wife. God does not want him to remarry
her for they are already married. Some
would say the first husband must not take her back without remarrying her and
should not remarry her for she has dirtied herself with another man. That would suggest that that the remarriage
is just a formality because only if the first marriage was still valid would
the first husband have grounds to consider her to be shoddy goods.
Forbidding a wife to return to her first husband if she married another
after leaving him does not necessarily imply that her marriage to her first
husband no longer exists and that that is why she cannot go back. It could mean that since she committed
adultery by marrying another that he should not take her back. She has defiled herself. God is saying that she is not a good woman
and he is better off rid of her so the argument that this indicates that
marriage can be dissolved is wrong.
Because the man had let her go in the first place it is thought that the
marriage must be over. The rule could be
designed to ensure that everybody thinks twice about divorcing. It could be that the rule was deployed to
force people not to separate.
Polygamy was allowed so what would a man need to divorce a wife for? The wife had no rights especially if she was
accused of a serious crime. Still, the
men could have been stubborn enough to expect the privilege of divorce.
It is said that the passage is not about divorce as such but is about the
hypothetical case of a man who sends away his wife and takes her back in such a
way that he has virtually lent her to another man (page 17, Hard Sayings,
Derek Kidner, Intervarsity Press, 1972). If so, the passage neither sanctions or
repudiates divorce for a good reason but just condemns men who whimsically send
their wives away and then look for them when they have already met other
men. There is nothing in the passage
about lending. The fact that the woman
is the one who leaves the house after being divorced and gets herself another
man disproves the lending theory. Her
husband does not get the man for her.
Bible scholars feel that Deuteronomy does not sanction divorce at all
(page 151, Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties).
Malachi 2 enjoins
oneness between husband and wife and asks them to have godly children. He said God said he hated divorce. Some say that this does not rule out divorce
as a necessary evil. But there is always
something that can be done to keep the couple together. A hard man could stand outside the door while
a violent husband and his poor wife act married for a few hours a week. If marriage is for children and is valid even
if no children can be conceived it implies that divorce over adultery is
wrong. To divorce over adultery would be
to say that marriage is primarily for love and fidelity.
In Mark 10, Jesus forbids all divorce.
Jews come along and ask Jesus if Jews may divorce their wives for any
reason. Jesus says no for God meant man
and woman to be one in marriage until death.
Then he repeated his revelation, “What therefore God has united (joined
together), let not man separate or divide” (Mark 10:9). Then he told his disciples in private that
anybody who divorces their wife or husband and marries another commits adultery
against his first wife for she is still the only real wife and he cannot divorce
her before God. He did not say some but
anybody meaning all.
Some theologians say that Mark’s Jesus is not being that strict but is
reminding all that life-long marriage is the ideal which does not mean that
divorce is wrong. Jesus was answering Jews
who asked him if divorce was ever lawful.
He didn’t say that some divorcees who remarry are committing adultery
but that all are. If it had been an
ideal he would have said, “Try to keep married until death but if you fail and
things cannot be mended then it is not adultery when you divorce and
remarry.” He did give an iron law when
his words can be taken that way. He said
that a man must leave his father and mother and be one flesh with his wife
meaning that a man must consider her to be closer to him than his parents
bodily and spiritually even though he was made of his parents. You can’t really make your mother not your
mother so how can you make your wife no longer your wife?
Perhaps Jesus took it for granted that since we knew his main law was
love we would know to allow divorce when it is the lesser evil?
The love argument overlooks the fact that what Jesus called love is
sometimes evil at least to our mind.
Jesus preached rules that were hard or impossible to rationally
defend. He would have said they are
rational but since our minds have been knocked off balance like Adam and Eve’s
were when they believed that the crime of eating the forbidden fruit was the
lesser evil and we inherited their irrational state.
In Luke, we read that everybody who gets a divorce and gets married again
to somebody else is committing adultery (
Paul deals with divorce in 1 Corinthians 7. He told the married not to get a
divorce. If the wife leaves her husband
she must remain single or go back to him.
The context says nothing about conditions so there are none. Jesus may have made sweeping condemnations of
things that some think were not meant to be taken too rigidly. For example, he said not to swear at all and
if you want to be holy let the man that steals your coat steal your cloak as
well. But Paul’s teachings cannot be
softened that way for he spoke plainly.
And besides Jesus could have meant the two rules literally. Just because we don’t like them or consider
them dangerous doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t mean to be taken too literally. And there is no doubt that when Jesus was
confronted by his disciples for his teaching on divorce and when they said it
was too hard he didn’t back down or soften what he said at all. In Matthew he
responded by those who made themselves eunuchs or celibates for the sake of the
Twice in Matthew’s Gospel, people think they read of Jesus allowing divorce when adultery has happened.
In both instances, Jesus says that whoever divorces his wife except for unfaithfulness makes her commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Father Richard P McBrien refers to these texts in his tome Catholicism page 853. He notes that Jesus says that marrying a divorced person except on the ground of porneias or unchastity is adultery and therefore forbidden. McBrien says that one interpretation says the exception is not a real exception at all. It refers not to divorce but to separation without marrying somebody new such as what happens in the case of an adulterous wife who had to be stoned to death for her sin in Jewish law. So what Jesus is saying then according to this interpretation is, "Whoever divorces his wife unless she is an adulteress and therefore will be stoned to death makes her commit adultery." But McBrien says this idea is wrong for the text does not use the word for adultery.
McBrien says the more accepted solution is that it does not mean an exception to the ban on divorce but is referring to incestuous marriage. In such a case the marriage can be annulled and husband and wife can remarry. The reasoning is that porniea means prostitution among the Hebrews and was used to refer to incestuous marriage.
Porniea which is translated as unfaithfulness may be
translated incorrectly for the word may mean fornication. Porniea is a Greek
term. It appears meaning adultery in
Ezekiel 16:32, prostitution in Hosea 2:2 and Jeremiah 3:9 and in the New
Testament it appears sometimes as sex outside marriage and is distinguished
from moicheia which is adultery. This happens in Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians
6:9 and Galatians 5:19. However,
fornication is the least it could mean so that must be what it does mean for we
must accept the simplest understanding.
Both reason and the Bible forbid us to say that Jesus said except for
adultery. When he did not make it clear
he meant adultery he did not mean it.
Jesus was undoubtedly trying to restrict divorce. In Matthew 5:28, he said that even looking at
another woman with desire was adultery evidently showing that he did not really
think that adultery was enough to dissolve a marriage. If he did, thinking about adultery being
adultery would be enough to dissolve it which would mean that very few
marriages could not be dissolved.
If a married couple fornicate with one another then they cannot be
validly married. They are married in
name and law only. Jesus is saying that
if you have a wife who is not really your wife for some reason it is not a sin
to divorce her. He forbids divorce
except to end invalid marriages. They
didn’t have annulments in those days.
Jesus is probably saying that legal divorce is better than looking for
an annulment which is probably right.
Jesus allows what amounts to artificial divorce in the eyes of God and
real divorce in the eyes of the law to end a fake marriage for even God could
not dissolve a true marriage. He said
then that a man cannot divorce his wife unless he fornicates with her and that
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. The woman that was fornicated with was not
married so to marry her would not be adultery.
The assertion that whoever marries a divorcee is an adulterer stresses
that the exception was not about real marriage.
The Catholic Church forbids divorce as in ending a marriage in the eyes
of God. But under grave circumstances it
allows civil divorce as long as this is understood to be just a man-made decree
that has no real power to dissolve the marriage. The Church allows divorce for example when the
Church annuls a marriage and the state doesn’t agree with that annulment and
the man and woman want the state benefits of being single again so they divorce
in the eyes of the state.
Jesus could have had the same attitude with regard to invalid
marriages. But since he complained that
divorce was making a person commit adultery and therefore bad he would not have
allowed it as freely as the Catholic Church does and would have allowed it only
when the marriage was not real.
By the way, the hypocrisy of allowing civil divorce when it will lead to
the temptation of remarriage which the Church says would be so serious a sin
that it would not be worth the benefits of the divorce proves its
hypocrisy. It is still making the state
think and act as if the marriage is over when it still exists. It is making the state try to dissolve a real
marriage and marriage is a legal affair as well as a religious one. The Church says the state has no rights
except what God gives it so how could the state have the right to say a
marriage that God created is no more? How
could it be right to divorce even under the conditions allowed by the Church
and as long as one doesn’t think the marriage is truly dissolved? Is it okay for the state to legislate that
somebody is not a thief when it knows they are?
It is hypocrisy to say that divorce is a great evil not just because it
is the false declaration that a marriage bound by God is no more but for what
it does to the children and then allow divorce within the confines of Church
teaching. Availing of it is like
supporting something bad.
When Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of fornication he said that
whoever divorces his wife except for unfaithfulness or
porniea
makes her commit adultery. If a man
divorces his real wife that is what he is doing making her commit
adultery. But what if the marriage is
not real because the man is already married and not divorced or married and
divorced to another woman? Then for him to divorce his new wife would not be
making her commit adultery for their fake marriage is adultery against the
woman he is still married to in the eyes of God. Perhaps this is what he meant by the
exception.
The exception is still more unlikely to mean that divorce is allowable
over adultery when Jesus said that life-long valid marriage was the ideal and
that we should forgive. Divorce and
separation could not possibly be approved by a man who said that if our brother
hurts us several times a day we should still forgive him and take his word for
it that he is sorry though it does not look like he is. So if your husband beats you up ten times a
day you must still stay with him (another interesting indication that the
twelve apostles who allegedly set up the Church and who all agreed with this
drivel were nutcases who should not be taken seriously). The fact that Christianity cares about your
virtue more than your happiness could mean nothing else. They excuse God being so cruel on the grounds
that God wants us to suffer so that we might learn virtue. Even belief in God implies divorce and
separation are immoral. The Church
sometimes says it is not being cruel and unsympathetic. It is for it allows killing in certain
circumstances and remarriage after divorce in none so controlling people is
more important than looking after them.
For the Church to be telling the truth it would need to be the case that
the Church would oppose remarriage after divorce even if Jesus had not
mentioned it. The Church would be
opposing divorce and remarriage just because it is bad. This is wrong for it can’t be always bad. The Church opposes them because Jesus says so
and that is fanaticism for no authority has the right to make demands without
being able to prove that these demands are good for us. Jesus was claiming this authority and proving
that he had no right to any obedience for he gave no hint that evidence had
anything to do with his demand. He gave
no examples of how bad these things are – another mistake that proves that
whatever he was the Son of it was not a good God.
To interpret Matthew as saying that only fornication or invalid marriage
was a separate case for divorce is the right interpretation.
Some say except for unfaithfulness or porniea
means that when a man marries a woman and it is found that she had been
unchaste with other men before the wedding while claiming to be true to him and
promising to be true to him forever the man could divorce her for there was no
real marriage and she did not mean the vows.
Some say that the
unfaithfulness meant is not that of the woman before the marriage but
after. It’s adultery. The man can repudiate the marriage contract
if the woman commits adultery.
Jesus would not have dared to make divorce permissible over adultery
because that would be encouraging people to commit adultery to escape from
unhappy marriages. And battering the
wife is worse than committing adultery and a better reason for divorce.
If Jesus regarded divorce for remarriage over adultery as lawful when
adultery had taken place then this is no consolation to Christians. He was talking to Jews about Jewish
marriages. Nothing in the Bible says
that a valid Christian marriage can be dissolved. The Bible says that true Christians have been
changed by the power of God into holy people unlike the Jews and other
outsiders. That is why the marriage
rules for true Christians could and would be different and tougher for they are
delivered from the sin nature. Jesus
said divorce was allowed by Moses because the people were so pig-headed. Some say the exception clause is like something
that is in brackets. This makes Jesus
say, “Divorce and remarriage are always wrong (adultery is another case)
etc”. Adultery is another case could
mean that he allows separation for adultery or divorce without remarriage which
amounts to the same thing. Matthew 5:32
gives light on this for it says that a man who puts his wife away except for
adultery makes her commit adultery and that whoever marries a divorced woman
commits adultery. Divorce would mean
separation as well as divorce for not all divorce was legal in whose days. The non-legal version would be separation and
the legally permitted one would be divorce.
The man can make his wife commit adultery by separating from her and
whoever marries a separated woman commits adultery (Question 880, Radio
Replies 3). Bible scholars agree
that Matthew
Radio Replies 3 says of Matthew 5:32,
Question 880,
“According to Matthew V., 32, Christ said, “Whomsoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication, and marry another, maketh her
commit adultery”.
Christ allowed permanent separation without
remarriage, if adultery has been committed by one of the parties. What He meant was this: Whosoever shall put
away his wife (I am not now speaking of mere separation without remarriage, for
that is lawful in the case of infidelity,) but whosoever puts away his wife and
marries another commits adultery himself and by his adulterous union forces his
wife into adultery if she marries another.
That is the only possible interpretation in the light of the context and
parallel passages. If the man who
marries the woman so put away commits adultery, she must still be the wife of
the one who dismissed her; and if she is still his wife, he must still be her
husband, and forbidden to take a new wife.”
The reasoning is perfectly right in so far
that it is known that the verse does not allow divorce and remarriage in the
case of adultery considering that all of the other teachings on marriage in the
New Testament absolutely forbid divorce for remarriage and enjoin celibacy on
all whose marriages have broken down.
Incidentally, if a man is not making his wife commit adultery by
dismissing her the dismissal must be a separation or just a living apart not a
divorce. If a man puts away his wife
because she committed adultery he would still be making her commit adultery by
telling her to go away. If a man puts
away his wife realising that the marriage was somehow invalid in the first
place he would not be making her commit adultery for if she remarries the
marriage will be real. Those who feel
that we should take the word wife literally will have to go with the
interpretation that Jesus is simply only allowing a man and wife to live apart
without remarriage if adultery has taken place.
Page 54 of The Catholic Church has the Answer says that in Matthew 19:9 Jesus doesn't allow divorce in the case of adultery but separation. It says that the fact that Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 have Jesus forbidding remarriage for those who are separated proves this. It is true that Jesus never ever said that remarriage was lawful. If he allowed divorce in the case of adultery or fornication, he still never said that the parties could marry other people.
All divorce would involve adultery for it is intending to commit it or
make the partner commit it when the partner wishes. Jesus said that adultery in the heart was as
morally bad as real adultery so the apostles knew that all divorce was
adultery. Then, when the apostles said
that it would be better not to marry at all when they heard Jesus’ teaching on
divorce it proves that they knew that Jesus did not allow divorce and
remarriage unless the first marriage was not real and not because of adultery.
When Mark and Luke forbade divorce absolutely it proves that Matthew was
unlikely to allow it for the tradition was that divorce was wrong. Jesus condemned Moses’ permitting of divorce
and was hardly likely to contradict himself later by permitting it for
adultery. He opposed divorce and never
said it was wrong only when intended for remarriage but wrong all the time.
Liberals ignore Jesus’ divorce ban for they say he was not saying that
divorce is wrong all the time but saying that the ideal was life-long
marriage. But he was asked a legal
question and so he gave a legal answer and to an idealistic one.
It is possible that if Jesus meant divorce could only be possible if adultery had happened that the words except for porniea were an addition. It could be said that we can tell this from the context which does not fit the idea of any exceptions for a valid marriage and from Mark which absolutely bans divorce. And why do the same words pop up in both places where Jesus has a go at divorce?
Matthew 5:31, 32 has Jesus saying that whoever divorces his wife except
for porniea makes her commit adultery because her and
his marriage cannot be dissolved by divorce and she is contracting a new but
fake marriage making her an adulteress.
But if he divorces her he is not making her do that unless her second or
new wedding has already been prepared for.
Jesus could not have meant that he was making her commit adultery when
he knows she will contract an illicit marriage.
It’s not his fault if he does not know.
It is her decision. In that case,
she would already have been an adulteress so her husband could not make one of
her. What Jesus might have meant by except
for porniea or unchastity was
that whoever divorces his wife makes an adulteress of her unless she already is
one.
But except for porniea does not mean adultery
here for what Jesus meant was that whoever divorces his wife except for the unchastity of an invalid marriage makes her commit
adultery. That is the most
straightforward interpretation. The
reason he can’t make her commit adultery is because there never was a marriage.
Jesus did not allow divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity despite
the loose and prejudiced translations you have in Bibles like the New
International Version.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, DIVORCE
(IN THE BIBLE) says that Matthew 19 where it says except for porniea just allows separation without remarriage or that it
is on about concubinage or fake marriage so a divorce
that is not a real divorce is allowed in cases of adultery.
If it allows separation without remarriage on the grounds of adultery
then something interesting happens if you consider Jesus’ declaration that divorce
for any reason but adultery is making the divorced commit adultery. Then the texts are saying that to divorce
someone except for adultery is to make them commit adultery for it is certain
once they are out the door they will make plans to get somebody else to have
sex with and perhaps wed.
If Jesus only allowed the divorcing in invalid marriages, Jesus would
mean that if somebody commits adultery their spouse can have the marriage
checked out to see if it was real and if it was unreal they can get a civil
divorce and remarry. But otherwise the marriage
should be assumed to be real despite all appearances. Therefore to use this procedure for any other
reason would be making the spouse commit adultery.
Then the third possibility is stated by the encyclopedia
to be that the exception does not refer to the verb for put away but to
something else. It may refer to the
question Jesus was asked about what the Law of Moses meant when it said a man
could separate from his wife because of some indecency in her. So by saying porniea
is an exception, Jesus meant that porniea or indecency
was an exception not for divorce or remarriage but that he was not going to
discuss its meaning.
So what he meant was divorce and remarriage are always wrong but
indecency was to be left out and to be an exception from the discussion. In support of this theory it can be argued
that the word porniea is very ambivalent and unclear.
Many people start new relationships after their marriage breaks down even before they divorce or get an annulment. The Catholic Church says that these are adulterous. They commit the sin of adultery against God and the state. Even before annulment it is still adultery for it is intended to be for only the decree can decide if the marriage never happened. At least if they got a divorce not to dissolve the marriage and to get married again but so that any relationship they have will not be the sin of adultery against the state they will sin less. The Church has to recommend divorce to lessen the evil. This makes all that talk about divorce being bad to be meaningless. They are only against it because God says so and that is all. But we cannot forbid things because of authority. Authority cannot make things right or wrong.
William Kasper, a Catholic theologian, suggested that though marriage is indissoluble that divorced couples in second marriages should be allowed to go to the sacraments if they are sorry for their part in the breakup of the first marriage and when they tried their best to save the marriage and when breaking up the second marriage would be unjust to the man and woman and any children of the marriage (page 860, Catholicism).
Christianity denies that causing upheaval and upset is necessarily bad or wrong. Jesus caused upset with his teaching and didn't flinch from causing it. The doctrine that marriage cannot be dissolved and that sex outside marriage is bad says that marriage no matter what problems or unhappiness it sometimes causes is necessary for justice and for protecting rights. It follows then that the second marriage being unreal isn't entitled to be respected or kept together.
The Roman Catholic Church absolutely prohibits divorce and states that it is contrary to natural law – is unnatural. It appeals to reason, the Bible and Tradition to bolster this ban. Yet after saying this, incredibly an Eastern Orthodox Catholic who gets a divorce in his Church is allowed to marry a Roman Catholic without looking for an annulment! (page 164, Rome has Spoken). That is unfair.
Jesus banned divorce completely. The apostles understandably reacted by saying that it is better for a man not to marry at all. Jesus didn't contradict them but stated that God makes it possible for some to keep it.
Marriage infers that divorce is wrong for it endeavours to tie two people
together without any concern for them and by treating them dishonestly. When it does that it could hardly infer that
divorce could ever be permissible. If
you are to love the sinner and hate the sin then you are to act as if something
in the sinner is sinning and not the sinner in which case divorce could never
be right. Divorce would be wrong for if
marriage is good then you love the person as good as if the sin was something
separate from the person. You would not
be able to penalise the sin by getting rid of the person in a divorce or
separation. If a terrible deceit would
justify divorce then it follows that you can get a divorce just because
somebody married you for marriage is deceit.
Religion hypocritically says that marriage vows bind for life while other
vows such as to be a nun for life do not.
The Catholic Church will not release you from your marriage vows, but a
nun can be released from lifelong vows.
Vows exist to express commitment and to create order in society. So the Church says. And yet it claims the power to render a vow
to be of no effect from that time on.
The Old Testament gives regulations from God for dealing with people who
made vows and who want to be free from them.
Roman Catholicism could allow some exceptions to the ban on divorce. It allows killing in some circumstances and
that doesn’t mean that everybody starts killing. To forbid a young childless wife from getting
married again after her husband runs off with her money and best friend never
to return is unkind in the extreme. The
Church claims that it is right to do this because it is necessary to prevent
people from deserting their spouses so that both of them can get out of their
marriage and try it again with a new partner.
This won’t happen enough to justify a blanket ban – and it could be
watched out for. Jesus could not have
been good if he was against divorce under all circumstances.
If the Church feels that the law will eventually get more liberal with
the passing of time if it allows divorce at all then it should oppose the law
of the land and set itself up as ruler for it is more trustworthy. The fact that some people will abuse divorce
does not mean that it ought to be banned completely.
The Church does not detest divorce because of what it does to the
children for it won’t even let childless marriages end. There are ways to prevent the children from
being damaged at least too much and it is up to the discretion of the parents
to decide how best to do this. It is
never divorce that hurts the children but the failure of the parents to be
civil. There are thousands of children
who were not very upset at the end of their parent’s marriage. It is advisable for the father or mother to
leave them for say two days per week for a while so that when they leave
finally the damage will be minimal. They
could extend it to three days and take the children out on the third day. We all know it is best to make the break
gradually. The Church does not encourage
this thinking for it simply does not care about the children at all for it is
using them to scare people off divorce.
There are ways in which the children can still have both parents –
perhaps the father can buy the house next door.
The Catholic who protests against divorce for the children is a liar. The Church is not thinking of the children
when it makes it a duty for a parent who is married to a sceptic who tries to
persuade the children that Jesus was not God to separate and take the children
away from that person.
The Church manipulates people to get them to disagree with divorce on the
grounds that it is bad for the children.
Even if it were necessarily true that divorce is bad for the children
the fact remains that the Church opposes it not for that reason but because it
holds that the state is unable to really dissolve marriage. The marriage still exists in the sight of God
despite the efforts of the state to end it.
A Church that would oppose divorce even if it were good for the children
has no right to use the harm divorce does children to sway public opinion
against divorce. To say that divorce is
bad for it is inexpedient for child welfare and the family as an institution is
to say that divorce may not be bad in itself but just bad because of the way we
treat it and the results it has. That is
heresy for a Catholic for the Catholic holds that divorce is always wrong for
marriage cannot be ended except by death.
The tendency of people who don’t know too much about religion to mistake
its principles for humanitarian ones has contributed to the power and the
wealth that religion has. Religion
thrives on error.
Banning divorce is not going to help keep the marriage together. When a husband and wife do not get along and
cannot mend their differences they will find it easier to tolerate one another
if they can leave easily and divorce is available. Banning divorce makes them feel they have to
stay together and suffer and that leads to resentment and will lead to an
abrupt break-up just because the pressure is unbearable and will reach a
breaking point. That will devastate the
children. It is a mistake pointing to
statistics to argue that divorce leads to more divorce for nobody can judge. It could be that most of these marriages
should be ended anyway.
It is said that divorce makes marriage vows insincere for they include
promising to remain faithful to the partner until the parting of death while
planning to divorce if things go wrong contradicts this. If that vow were essential for a valid
marriage then no one who believes in divorce or separation could contract a
valid marriage. But if separation agrees
with that vow then divorce must too.
It would appear that the Church is obsessed with power and so would be
better off if it did allow divorce for that would put the numbers of babies
being born up. That drives some to say
that its leaders must ban divorce out of spite and jealousy. Banning divorce was very useful in the era
when both parents had the role of brainwashing the child into being a good or
at least a convinced Catholic and it was necessary to keep the family together
to get the job done thoroughly. The
Church still bans divorce in the hope of seeing the world go back to all that.
The Bible in 1 Corinthians 7 allows pagans who are married but who subsequently
converted to Christianity to divorce their pagan spouse if both husband and
wife consent. But remarriage is not
mentioned so we don’t know if God allowed divorce for the sake of legally
separating the couple or to end the marriage in his sight. It is commonly believed that Paul meant
separation more than divorce. Others say
that since Paul wrote that marriage can’t be put asunder and tells the
separating mixed couple to put theirs asunder if they wish that he considers it
right and possible to terminate the marriage.
He says that the believer is not under bondage, the bond of
marriage. But still none of this proves
that he considered the union indissoluble.
He could have meant by put asunder the married couple parting but
staying married and under bondage could mean staying in the marriage to a
person you don’t want. The Catholic
Church allows remarriage in such cases and that makes a mockery of everything
it says against divorce. The Bible
doesn’t even say they can part for serious reasons! Also, if divorce is allowable in this case
with mutual consent then divorce, if it is allowed under different conditions
as well, must be forbidden if one partner forbids it.
In the Roman Church, the Pauline privilege allows you to remarry somebody
different if you became a Catholic after you contracted a marriage with a
non-Christian and were a non-Christian yourself at the time and you could not
live in peace together. So if a member
of a Hindu married couple converts to Catholicism and wants a new wife or
husband they can go and get one with the blessing of the Church. The Petrine
privilege is the same except that it entitles you to a new marriage if you were
already a Christian when you got married and if your husband is a Muslim or a
pagan or a Jew or any kind of non-Christian and you feel you would live your
faith better by getting out of the marriage.
Such is the sectarianism of the Catholic Church that it holds that a
sacramental marriage can only take place between two people baptised according
to the requirements of the Church and a sacramental marriage can never be
dissolved. The other marriages can for
they are non-sacramental.
When Christ said that Moses had to permit the Hebrews to divorce when
they would have rebelled if he hadn’t he was lying for these forced many
vehemently despised rules on them. It is
cruel to hurt people with broken marriages over the teaching of a man who lied
when giving that teaching.
The Bible says that husbands and wives are to love one another meaning
that they can do so for God only commands what is possible (Ephesians
5:28). This makes marital breakdown to
be one or both of their faults.
The Bible would have to see marriage as being only for children when
there was no birth-control in those days meaning that having children was a
duty and would keep the marriage happy.
This was a lie for it didn’t have to be necessarily true!
If sex is giving your whole self to another person which is what the Church
teaches, then how can it be right to look for a new partner or wife or husband
if that person dies? To say I give
myself to you until divorce if it happens is putting a condition on it as much
as saying I give myself to you until you die is. It is not giving your whole self. If you give your whole self to a person you
will be like the person who having lost their beloved wife or husband refuses
to even think about a new partner for they loved the old partner so much. In Christianity, marriage ends only by
death. What if in the future you die and
are revived? If you married and wanted
to marry, you could get killed in a hospital so that you can die and be brought
back to life again a free man or woman.
The Church couldn’t possibly deny that it succeeds in dissolving the
marriage or ending it leaving you free to marry again. Some day it may be possible. In that day, people will see how silly it is
to oppose divorce for this will amount to the same thing. The Church should allow divorce.
Even if this is not possible, it would be the same if it could happen –
people will be wishing it could be done and if that is acceptable then these
people are ending marriages in their hearts.
It is just like when Jesus said that if you lust for a woman you sin in
your heart with her even if you never touch her.
The Church professes to have compassion for those whose marriages have broken down and who want to be with a new partner or who wish to remarry. The Church says then it suffers with them and wishes to help. What is this compassion then but an admission that they know fine well they are wrecking lives and trying to wreck them? If we may use an extreme example to drive home the point, a man wants to rape a child you don’t say, “I feel so sorry that I cannot let you do this.” What you are really saying is that it is not wrong to rape the child but you won’t allow it. The Church cannot have any compassion for people who want a new partner after marriage breakdown. It can hardly have compassion that the marriage broke down in a lot of cases for God supposedly helps marriage to survive for it is a sacrament. If a husband wouldn’t stop beating his wife so the marriage had to end that would be different but the Church cannot have compassion for unhappy marriages that are not as bad as that.
The Catholic religion says that people living together before marriage makes the marriage more likely to end in divorce. There is no mention of the fact that religion encourages the notion that marriage is for life. That makes people suspicious of commitment for that is a mad ideal. Thus they start to live together and their fear that the relationship may be only temporary kicks in and causes trouble.
Conclusion
To ban divorce is to force misery on most married people. It’s best not to marry at all for marriage infers that divorce is wrong.
WORKS
CONSULTED
A
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society,
Believing
in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press,
Biblical
Dictionary and Concordance of the New American Bible, Confraternity of
Christian Doctrine,
Catholicism, Richard P McBrien, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1994
Divorce,
John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
Eunuchs
for the
Hard
Sayings, Derek Kidner, Intervarsity Press, 1972
Hard
Sayings, FF Bruce, Hodder and
Moral
Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ,
Longmans, Green and Co,
Moral
Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society,
New
Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of
America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of
Columbia, 1967
Preparing
for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal Conference, Veritas,
Radio
Replies Volume 3, Dr Leslie Rumble MSC, Rev Charles Carty,
Radio Replies Press,
Rome
has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements and How They Have Changed
Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben
(Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
Shattered
Vows, Exodus From the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff
Press,
Sex
& Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue
C SS R,
The Catholic Church has the Answer, Paul Whitcomb, TAN Publishers, Illinois, 1986
The
Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing
Company,
“The
Lord Hateth Putting Away!” and Reflections on
Marriage and Divorce The Committee of the Christadelphian,
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992
The
WWW
How
to Fight the Religious Right, Brian Elroy McKinley
http://elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
BIBLE
VERSION USED
The
Amplified Bible
24
November 2007