|
While reasearching a matter I found some interesting material written by a Catholic. In my view he has a proper understand of the "exception clause" and explains quite well why "adultery" that is commonly asserted to be the exception, cannot be the case. Basically, he is teaching Catholic doctrine that there is no exception. Catholic doctrine does not allow divorce at all. I believe he is right in his expose of the traditional teaching on the exception clause. But, his conclusion (Catholic doctrine) that a divorce does not free the parties and allow for marriage, is exactly what 1Tim. 4:1-3 ("forbidding to marry") condemns. This "forbidding to marry" was practiced by the same group of people who "commanded to abstain from meats." Catholic doctrine.
I have highlighted pertinent parts of the article and inserted my comments.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002cTB
[Friends: I am starting a new thread here with a more meaningful "title," by transplanting a couple of messages from the thread called "What is the best way to contact the Pope?" Since these messages have to do with divorce and marriage, they are not related to contacting the Pope. I will begin by fully quoting a message posted by Mark Deis, which got the tangential discussion going a few days ago. Next will come my reply to Mark. After that will come some questions from Dave Bowerman. And finally, I will try to answer Dave's questions. Please feel free to join in the discussion at that point. JFG]
rw: Below is a post from a man who the evil Catholic doctrine has affected:
[From Mark Deis]:
I think that our culture has decided to let people do what makes them happiest, while disregarding the word of God. Matthew 5:31-32: "It has been said, 'anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfullness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorces woman commits adultery." I believe in the word of Christ, so I am still faithful, depite having been "legally" divorced for two years. If my wife wishes to sin, so be it, I have tried, but I will not.
-- Mark Deis (marinerigger@msn.con), February 18, 2000.
rw: Below is a reply from some Catholic authority. He tells the man who wrote the above post WHY he is still married, though legally divorced, and because of this he and his wife cannot marry. He praises the man for his faithfulness.
[from J. F. Gecik]:
Mark,
I greatly admire your faithfulness to your estranged wife and to the Word of God. We should all pray for you to persevere.
Besides writing to praise you, I am writing to caution you with respect to your quotation from the Bible. I am concerned that you may not have a reliable translation, because you quoted Matthew 5:32 as follows:
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
There is a good deal of evidence sprinkled throughout the New Testament, even later in Matthew -- not to mention the unbroken teaching via Apostolic Tradition -- that the Greek word in this verse, "porneia," should not be taken to mean "marital unfaithfulness" (i.e., adultery). The evidence and the Tradition make clear that Jesus was not making an exception to allow for divorce and remarriage after adultery commmitted by one of the spouses. Instead, divorce after "porneia" refers to separation of putative spouses who are involved in an invalid "union."
May God continue to strengthen you.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 18, 2000.
[from Dave Bowerman]:
John,
Could you please provide an example/scenario of what you are referring to with regard to "invalid union"?
Also, since the Greek word in question, "porneia", is defined as "to commit fornication or any sexual sin", how does that line up with your "invalid union" explanation? As I mentioned in our off-line discussion, I'm not 100% sure that "marital unfaithfulness" is the complete interpretation of that verse, but it definitely does refer to some sexual sin that occurs between a married man and woman that Jesus permits as a valid exception to a justified divorce with an allowable re-marriage. Adultery does seem the most likely interpretation however.
Thanks in advance for your response. God bless.
Dave
-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 19, 2000.
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 21, 2000 Answers
Hello, Dave.
Before I answer your questions, a preliminary note ... Throughout this thread, if I state that remarriage is impossible until the death of a spouse occurs, please assume that I mean "after a valid sacramental marriage." That is, I am not referring to "invalid unions," and I am not referring to the explicitly biblical, divorce-and-remarriage exceptions raised by St. Paul -- the ones that involve a non-sacramental (or "natural") marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian (or of two non-Christians). We agree that such "natural" marriages can end, and either party, having become a Christian, then can enter a valid sacramental union.
rw: The above teachings is supposed to be based upon Jesus' teachings. However, it was to the Jews that Jesus' teachings was addressed. Thus, invalid marriages would include marriages that involved a woman of a different religion, as well as incestual marriages.
My opinion is that a Catholic, in answering questions like yours, should always start in this way ... The PRIMARY way for us to know that Jesus was not making an exception for "adultery" ... the primary way that we know that remarriage is impossible after divorce (following a sacramental marriage) ... is that the Catholic Church teaches that to us through the "Magisterium" (teaching authority of the pope and united bishops). The Church has protected the "deposit of the Faith" and passed it on by Sacred/Apostolic Tradition. She has always known what is meant in Matthew 5:32 and has passed it along to us, generation after generation after generation. She has never taught any generation of Christians, across the span of 1970 years, that Matthew 5:32 makes remarriage after adultery a possibility.
rw: The "Church" is right in teaching that Jesus did not give adultery as an exception for marriage after a divorce, but is WRONG to conclude that a legal divorce does not end the marriage and make both parties free to marry. (See 1Cor 7:8,9; 27-28.)
As I said, that is the primary way for us to know the truth. To people who have not yet come to realize the authority and reliability of the Magisterium, though, the Holy Spirit always provides the Church with convincing explanations ...
-- 1. I hope that you will agree with me that scripture cannot contradict itself.
-- 2. Thus, if several groups of early Christians learned from scripture that divorce and remarriage are never permitted, it could not be true that other groups of early Christians learned otherwise.
-- 3. Yet, to someone not in touch with Sacred Tradition, it could see, that such may have been the case. Ah, but it would only seem so. Here's what I'm talking about ...
-- 4. Not all Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean had all the New Testament books during the first three centuries of persecution, difficult travel, tough and expensive hand-copying, widespread illiteracy, etc.. Some had no books, some had one or more works by St. Paul, some had one gospel, some had a mixture of epistle(s) and gospel(s), etc.. Those communities that did not have the gospel according to St. Matthew, but did have Mark and/or Luke and/or 1 Corinthians would have learned from them, explicitly, that there are NO exceptions for divorce and remarriage.
-------- Luke 16:18 -- ""Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. " ... NO exceptions.
-------- Mark 10:11-12 -- "... Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." ... NO exceptions.
-------- 1 Cor 7:10-11 -- "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife. " ... NO exceptions.
-- 5. Since it is impossible for there to be two mutually contradictory principles in the Word of God, and since it would have been impossible for there to be two conflicting marriage laws governing the widely spread Christians, we can know (even without a Magisterium) that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 were not presenting an exception for divorce and remarriage following a valid sacramental marriage. We can know, then, that Matthew's < b>exception-language must refer to something else.
-- 6. So what else is it? As I said in my reply to Mark Deis, it refers to the (not just permissible, but) required separation of "putative spouses" who are involved in an invalid "union." [The word "putative" means "commonly accepted or supposed," even though not "factual."] This would include "unions" within forbidden degrees of consanguinity (incest) and other special cases prohibited by religious law. After such separations, the individuals, if Christian, could then marry validly and sacramentally. I was looking at one edition of the New American Bible on Saturday and noticed that the phrase in question was correctly translated. It said that a man who divorces his wife makes her an adulteress ... "unless the marriage is unlawful." Similarly, I have ascertained that the New Jerusalem Bible accurately attributes the following language to Jesus: "I am not speaking of illicit marriage."
-- 7. As you rightly state, the Greek "porneia" is a word that is inclusive of a variety of sexual improprieties and is usually translated as "unchastity," "fornication," "prostitution," though it can mean "adultery" in certain contexts. St. Matthew [or a person who may have translated his work from Aramaic/Hebrew into Greek] had at least one Greek word that he could have used to specify "adultery" -- moicheia -- if that was what Jesus had meant. Instead, he used "porneia," because Jesus, speaking Aramaic, had made clear to the apostles that he was referring to the other situations I just mentioned above.
-- 8. I don't believe that it is a coincidence that St. Paul uses "porneia" in referring to a man incestuously living with his stepmother (1 Cor 5:1). This is an example of a "union" that can be broken, according to Matthew 5:32, and can be followed by a true marriage.
-- 9. Here is another scripturally based reason for us to realize that Jesus was not referring to adultery. At Matthew 19:9, He states that "... whoever divorces his wife, except for "porneia," and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples, taken aback by this, then exclaim, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry!" Think about it. Since the apostles already could divorce and remarry after adultery -- even under the most conservative school of Jewish law at that time -- Jesus MUST have been making things even MORE restrictive -- i.e., ruling out remarriage after adultery! Otherwise the apostles would not have stated that "it is not expedient to marry."
-- 10. Here is yet another reason -- now from common sense -- that we can know that Jesus was not referring to adultery. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 have "porneia," and we have both talked about just some of the possible meanings of that word. How then, can anyone pinpoint "adultery" as the only grounds for divorce and remarriage. Since "porneia" can mean various other things, someone following the principles of "sola scriptura" and private interpretation could interpret the word in ways other than "adultery" (to which, I think, you would prefer to restrict it). A "free agent" (sola-scriptura/private interpretation advocate) will say that you must allow for divorce and remarriage in such cases as one spouse commiting bestiality or homosexual acts ... or trafficking in pornography ... or acting as a pimp ... or demanding "too much/too little" sex ... or committing sadistic acts during intercourse ... or demanding satisfaction of masochistic desires ... or demanding sodomy of the spouse against his/her will ... or surreptitiously dating a third person [a form of "marital infidelity," to quote Mark Deis's inaccurate translation] ... or even just lusting after a third person ... etc., etc., etc.. Without a guiding Magisterium, weak humans will interpret scripture as they wish. They will will dream up a multitude of exceptions, and then claim that they can be divorced and remarried because of them.
rw: It seems apparent to me that the Magisterium needs to restudy this issue.
Well, this last point, #10, opens another door ... the one that leads into the explanation that the Protestant principles of "sola scriptura" and private interpretation -- absent the guidance of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium -- are (a) without historic precedent, (b) not "workable," and (c) anti-biblical. But that is a discussion for another day ... and another thread.
I wish you the peace of Christ and a beautiful holiday weekend.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 21, 2000.
|
