Marriage and Divorce

[Fides_et_Ratio]

How do we, as Catholics, reconcile Matthew 19:9 with our teachings on divorce? Divorce is not possible in the Catholic Church (only an anullment, which recognizes that there never was a true marriage)... yet, here Christ seems to say that divorce is permissible in one instance? I'm a little confused.

[Benedict]

The word Christ uses is [i]porneia[/i]. It is often translated as "adultery" but it actually encompasses a whole host of sexual deviancies (incest, beastiality, sodomy, etc.).

The traditional reading of the verse simply takes the following perspective: you can get a certificate of divorce for adultery. That is, you can get a certificate of divorce if you marry someone who is already married.

Such would be [i]porneia[/i]. Such avoids the Protestant practice of "putting asunder what God has joined together," since you were never joined together in the first place (known to Catholics as an annulment).

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Dec 26 2004, 09:15 PM'] How do we, as Catholics, reconcile Matthew 19:9 with our teachings on divorce? Divorce is not possible in the Catholic Church (only an anullment, which recognizes that there never was a true marriage)... yet, here Christ seems to say that divorce is permissible in one instance? I'm a little confused. [/quote]
here is this verse in question:

[b]Mat 19:9[/b] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [[i]porneia[/i]], and marries another, commits adultery."


first off, i think the meaning of this verse is complicated by the many possible translations for the greek word [i]porneia[/i]. the KJV translates this as "fornication," the RSV as "unchastity," the NAB as "the marriage is unlawful." the NAB commentary on this verse (and those like it) is interesting. make of it what you will:[list]
[*][[b]on Mat 19:9[/b]] Moses' concession to human sinfulness (the hardness of your hearts, Matthew 19:8) is repudiated by Jesus, and the original will of the Creator is reaffirmed against that concession. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): [b]see the note on Matthew 5:31-32[/b]. There is some evidence suggesting that Jesus' absolute prohibition of divorce was paralleled in the Qumran community (see 11QTemple 57:17-19; CD 4:12b-5:14). Matthew removes Mark's setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone "in the house" (Mark 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman's divorcing her husband (Matthew 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.
[*][[b]on Mat 5:31-32[/b]] See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. [b]It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18).[/b] Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. [b]In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.[/b]
[/list]the point here seems to be that the greek word [i]porneia[/i] implies that the marriage was unlawful. consequently, adultery cannot occur if there was never a (valid) marriage. so, this verse isn't about an exception that allows for divorce, its about when exactly a person can be charged with adultery.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Benedict]

Yeah, what he said.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Ah, thanks B and phat... I should've known.. look at the Greek!


Next question. Guy I'm talking/discussing this with thinks that sex=marriage b/c of the "one flesh" verses in the Bible.

This is his point (roughly):
[quote]The Bible says that if you have sex you are one flesh with that person. "One flesh" means "married" -- if not, then when two people become "one flesh" explain to me how they are not bound in God's eyes. When you have become "one flesh" with someone else, you have two options... marry the person or go your merry way and commit the sin of fornication.

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and sleeps with her, he must pay the customary dowry and accept her as his wife." Exodus 22:16

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father [bride price]. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deut. 22:28-29[/quote]
Now, I know that he's already got himself in a trap by saying there are two options, and then saying marriage is one of them. But I have a feeling he'll just correct his language.
Anything else I can pick at?

[phatcatholic]

two become one flesh when they have sex [i][b]within the bonds of marriage[/b][/i]. he seems to suggest that if two people have sex then they must get married b/c they have already become one. but this is simply not so.

sexaul intercourse is the consummation of a timeless bond of love and unity that has already been pledged between two people. sex outside of marriage simply does not carry out this function. actually, there are no strict guarantees that it will provide this function w/in marriage, but at least when two people are married this is the understanding of the marriage act (sex). as such it is our best guarantee that sex between two people will carry out its intended purpose. at any rate, premarital sex holds no guarantees and is often undertaken for more illict reasons. b/c of the very context in which it is undertaken, we simply cannot say that sex outside of marriage results in "two becoming one" as it does w/in the proper context of marriage.

this could probably be worded more clearly. let me know if it helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[bookin'it]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Dec 26 2004, 09:15 PM']Divorce is not possible in the Catholic Church (only an anullment, which recognizes that there never was a true marriage)[/quote]

All For the Glory of God!

Y'all seemed to have moved on, but I have a comment on the quote above. I have always been taught that divorce is possible for a Catholic [i]as long as re-marriage does not take place[/i]. In same cases, seperation is the needed course of action (abusive spouse).

I'm just throwing this into the mix - what do y'all think?
thanks,

anna

[Fides_et_Ratio]

A person can get a "civil" divorce, but that's a matter of cultural/law, and not of the Church. That is, sometimes, people who are "separated" or whose marriage was annulled, may need to (for legal reasons) get a civil divorce so that the government can step in where it needs to (i.e., financial situations, abusive situations, etc).


phat, thanks again. I am still talking with this guy, and may have a few more questions, but life is crazy, so it may be a while before I have a chance to sit down and think!

[phatcatholic]

its all good, just do what you can

[Norseman82]

I know these are not Catholc links, and I apologize if it violates a rule regarding such, but I found these links to be the best biblical exegeses I've seen so far regarding the [i]porneia[/i] exception in a way that backs up the Catholic position:

[url="http://www.christiansinglesmatch.com/~christia/divorceandremarriage.html"]http://www.christiansinglesmatch.com/~chri...remarriage.html[/url]

[url="http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/marry.html"]http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/marry.html[/url]

One of the views put forth in both links is that because the [i]porneia[/i] exception is found only in Matthew and since Mathew is considered to have written to a Jewish audience, the [i]porneia[/i] exception is really directed at unfaithfulness during the betrothal period before marriage (which is something either unique or practiced most formally or seriously by Jew's of Jesus' time and is a concept lost in modern-day times).

[phatcatholic]

wow, those sites [i]are[/i] helpful